Z-Day 2010 - "Be the change we want to see in the world

Post Reply New Topic

Please provide a better explanation for the overwhelming consensus.

People like you in high places.

It was "probably correct" during the time of the Ancient Greeks and only after better heliocentric models developed was geocentrism "probably incorrect".

Since the truth value of a matter like geocentrism cannot change, it is either correct or incorrect, then what is to be said of the adverb "probably"?

Sure it can change. Just consider a different reference frame. It's not as though the aether actually exists and we can make any absolute reckoning of space.

It is to be said that the adverb reflects fundamental limits to epistemology.

Also, fuzzy logic and quantum logic (while still in the development stage) allow for multiple, probabilistic, truth values.

Are you saying that there is some institutional bias against creationists and other dissidents like you? If so, please formulate it in a non-conspiratorial fashion (I'd particularly love to see the details of your better explanation for the scientific community's overwhelming rejection of creationism).

In terms of expressing relative apparent motion, the language that works easiest to express things may be geocentric, but would you really argue in favor of geocentrism and why? To prove a point of some type? Do you actually support it or is it a "just for sake of argument" type of thing?

Wait, did you accuse me of word games and sophistry earlier, or was that someone else?

I consider it a system that feeds back upon itself, like a positive feedback system. It would probably be able to be classified as "conspiratorial" except I think it is unintentional. Those in control of journals and laboratories and educational facilities tend to have already accepted the secular models and, in addition to laws regulating that only secular explanations be taught and endorsed, they tend to approve of those of like mind. As such, those who present the secular model have much of a chance to publish in secular journals. As such, research projects which either benefit or are neutral to the secular model gain time and funding. Due to the bias existing within those who are in control, it increases difficulty for those who would bother to disagree and it facilitates those who would carry the party line.

You forget that Darwinism is a fairly new idea, and had to first gain acceptance among a skeptical audience. The evidence for evolution has only grown stronger since that time, so how do you explain Darwinism having become entrenched in the first place? And, though such references take me out of my field, what of the data from physics, geology, etc that contradict the YEC timeline? You have to rewrite most of science to make creationism coherent.

There was more academic freedom in the 1800's. Less triumphalism and closed mindedness. That is what allowed it in the door.

I doubt whether that is true, but let's assume it is. You are saying that in an environment of academic freedom, evolution was able to supplant all rival hypotheses?

Oh yes! It supplanted and conquered all of them, just on the basis of it being the most scientific and important sounding theory ever discovered! Most certainly, and then evidence for it just kept growing stronger and stronger and bigger and better and faster and smarter! Now today there is no true scientist who doesn't adhere to it because it is central to life, the universe, and everything! And if anyone who claims to be a scientist disagrees with it, then they are not a true scientist because no true scientist doesn't accept evolution for the blindingly obvious fact that it is or ever existed!! !

Your assumption is obviously based on the attitude that science is faith based rather than doubt based. Since you have repeatedly exhibited a faith based personal attitude that is understandable but in actuality all scientific assertion is based, not on faith, but on observation and predicted and confirmed results and evolution provides this consistently and very usefully. Nothing in Creationism can provide anything to compare so it is rejected as an amusing fantasy by anyone who has a reasonable comprehension of the field.

I should take ths opportunity to ate that you are COMPLETELY wrong about me and my views. It is not my intention to put words in your mouth, I was merely responding with my view.

Oh, so you think just because you disagree with my view that means you have the right to demoniose it and ridicule it? Very mature.

So please, satisfy my curiosity, please, if you are going to attack me and state that I am "beyond insane" which I find quite insulting, could you please back up your accusation with some facts?

If you do not wish to be bothered with my views then DON'T RESPOND TO THEM!! ! Simple as that. No-one is forcing you to reply, and you think you have the right to piss and moan at me for having "beyond insane" views when you are NOT EVEN OBLIGATED TO READ THEM AND RESPOND TO THEM.

You say you can refute my "claims" about the banking system, 9/11 and religion, then BRING IT ON!! !! Have the courage of your convictions. Any old monkey can say "oh yea, thats just bollocks, I can disprove that in my sleep" ANY pillock can say that. How about you stop talking the talk, and start walking the walk? If you say you can disprove it, then BRING IT ON.

And I have repeatedly stated in my posts on this site that I am not a conspiracy theorist. For one thing I avoid the label because people are so quick to jum,p down my throat and pidgeon-hole me into the "nut" category purely because of the derogatory stereotype that has been associated with "conspiracy theories". You lump me in with all the other "nuts" purely because I question the official story, well shame on you, that is rather pathetic. And resistant to facts? hello? The zeitgeist movies for ONE are BUILT on facts. Not speculation, not hearsay, not rumours, but FACTS. I feel you owe me an apology for lumping me in with the "nut" crowd. I make no judements upon you personally for what you believe so what gives you the right to judge me?

Oh, that's right. I have views that are contravene to your own. I see. How mature.

And "precious zeitgeist movie" How childish are you to assume that? What makes you think that I base my entire world view on a single documentary? You think I don't have 3 books on the go all the time? You think I don't pay attention to other intellectuals? No of course you don't. Your efforts to discredit me and to insult me hinge on your attempt to propagate the idea that I am a closed minded person who uses Zeitgeist: The Movie as a bible. GROW UP. For one thing you are conveniantly forgetting that there is MORE THAN ONE ZEITGEIST DOCUMENTARY. But you won't like to acknowledge that.

The only reason Zeitgeist has come up on this thread is because people who have made the ignorant association between Zeitgeist: The Movie and the Zeitgeist Movement, are trying to discredit The Zeitgeist Movement, purely because they both contain the same word.

So seriously, I think you seem to think that this is about winning or losing. To me it is not. What is the big deal about it anyway? People have a fear of being proven wrong these days. Everything seems to be a competition coz to be proven wrong must, in some way imply that you are weak and inferior. No. I go by the principle that to be proven wrong is something that you should welcome and celebrate, coz when you are proven wrong, you are learning somethiong new. You are being elevated to a new level of understanding.