|
|
Post by goz on Sept 16, 2018 1:08:48 GMT
You'll have to be more specific. Step 1. Watch this video. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 16, 2018 1:22:51 GMT
You'll have to be more specific. Step 1. Watch this video. Step 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 16, 2018 1:30:36 GMT
You'll have to be more specific. Step 1. Watch this video. <video src="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1ADVLXTw4g"> Here is my policy on videos. 1) They are destroying the ability of people to communicate in text. Text is essential to actual learning environments and where necessary to the rapid transfer of information. 2) Videos are a waste of bandwidth caused by children playing too much on the internet. In extremely rare cases a picture or a brief video of a few seconds can show some detail better than text. otherwise the purpose of the video is to be entertaining. In some cases it is to prove that the presenter has more money and power, but that only works on children. If you want me to watch a video you will have to tell me exactly what is so important about it and why you couldn't say it in text. I'm not going to spend a hundred times more air data than I actually need. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 16, 2018 1:37:20 GMT
Step 1. Watch this video. <video src="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1ADVLXTw4g"> Here is my policy on videos. 1) They are destroying the ability of people to communicate in text. Text is essential to actual learning environments and where necessary to the rapid transfer of information. 2) Videos are a waste of bandwidth caused by children playing too much on the internet. In extremely rare cases a picture or a brief video of a few seconds can show some detail better than text. otherwise the purpose of the video is to be entertaining. In some cases it is to prove that the presenter has more money and power, but that only works on children. If you want me to watch a video you will have to tell me exactly what is so important about it and why you couldn't say it in text. I'm not going to spend a hundred times more air data than I actually need. Did I mention the ark? No wonder you are a knuckle dragging creationist if you don't keep up with technology, and videos provide context, better ways to judge credibility of the content plus the nuanced differences that actually viewing something in real time gives to the viewer even apart from visualisations of evidence and points. This physicist is working at the cutting edge of physics at CERN, is a world expert in his field and has an uncanny knack of explaining complex concepts for the dummies, and you can't even be bothered to watch what he has to say! Your loss. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 16, 2018 2:08:58 GMT
Here is my policy on videos. 1) They are destroying the ability of people to communicate in text. Text is essential to actual learning environments and where necessary to the rapid transfer of information. 2) Videos are a waste of bandwidth caused by children playing too much on the internet. In extremely rare cases a picture or a brief video of a few seconds can show some detail better than text. otherwise the purpose of the video is to be entertaining. In some cases it is to prove that the presenter has more money and power, but that only works on children. If you want me to watch a video you will have to tell me exactly what is so important about it and why you couldn't say it in text. I'm not going to spend a hundred times more air data than I actually need. Did I mention the ark? No wonder you are a knuckle dragging creationist if you don't keep up with technology, and videos provide context, better ways to judge credibility of the content plus the nuanced differences that actually viewing something in real time gives to the viewer even apart from visualisations of evidence and points. This physicist is working at the cutting edge of physics at CERN, is a world expert in his field and has an uncanny knack of explaining complex concepts for the dummies, and you can't even be bothered to watch what he has to say! Your loss. Videos can do all the things you say, but the ones on the internet usually do not. The videos you linked probably do not. In real life learning environments they are usually a waste of time and resources. Such videos will likely dominate the internet as long as children run the world. Be careful that "new technology" doesn't turn you into an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 16, 2018 5:03:48 GMT
Did I mention the ark? No wonder you are a knuckle dragging creationist if you don't keep up with technology, and videos provide context, better ways to judge credibility of the content plus the nuanced differences that actually viewing something in real time gives to the viewer even apart from visualisations of evidence and points. This physicist is working at the cutting edge of physics at CERN, is a world expert in his field and has an uncanny knack of explaining complex concepts for the dummies, and you can't even be bothered to watch what he has to say! Your loss. Videos can do all the things you say, but the ones on the internet usually do not. The videos you linked probably do not. In real life learning environments they are usually a waste of time and resources. Such videos will likely dominate the internet as long as children run the world. Be careful that "new technology" doesn't turn you into an idiot. 1. You are a stupid ignorant old man. 2. The videos happen to be on the internet and YouTube. No 1 was made by the ABC and is an interview documentary and the second one is an address given by professor Cox to school students in an academic situation at a university streamed around the world. 3. I can understand how someone as stubborn and limited in intelligence as you doesn't want to gain modern knowledge and even blame the technology for the content. Again you are pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 16, 2018 9:00:45 GMT
Videos can do all the things you say, but the ones on the internet usually do not. The videos you linked probably do not. In real life learning environments they are usually a waste of time and resources. Such videos will likely dominate the internet as long as children run the world. Be careful that "new technology" doesn't turn you into an idiot. 1. You are a stupid ignorant old man. 2. The videos happen to be on the internet and YouTube. No 1 was made by the ABC and is an interview documentary and the second one is an address given by professor Cox to school students in an academic situation at a university streamed around the world. 3. I can understand how someone as stubborn and limited in intelligence as you doesn't want to gain modern knowledge and even blame the technology for the content. Again you are pathetic. There is a reason it was called the "idiot box." Mass media is written and prepared for children and adults tending children. "Man addresses students on basic science" is an idiotic reason to watch a video unless you have any relatives in the video. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 16, 2018 13:47:23 GMT
I don't. I do however have a lot of training in proving things. I can find certainties approaching absolute, but that's the best anyone can do. For example no one can "prove" that gravity will be any different or the same tomorrow. We can however notice that there appear no agencies that might cause it to change. I have never claimed to have the "Holy Spirit." I have said that you probably need it to understand any Bible verses. So when I comment on the Bible it is usually just a review of others' comments, my beliefs however poorly founded. I make no guarantees. Such as? I don't believe the level of barbarity in the Old Testament was ordered by God. I don't believe God invented slaughtering infants for example. There were very barbaric practices that people considered a matter of course. The people of God were the first to avoid such practices, perhaps at first by turning them over to nonhuman agencies. I do not believe "God" is essentially anthropomorphic. I believe God's people were gradually steered away from that ancient world practice as well. The "God" of Judaism is more a system of ethics than a person. I suspect many "Christians" require an anthropomorphic Jesus because of their severe mental limitations. I am not the only person with these views. The more educated people are, the more likely they are to see things this way. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 16, 2018 22:12:04 GMT
1. You are a stupid ignorant old man. 2. The videos happen to be on the internet and YouTube. No 1 was made by the ABC and is an interview documentary and the second one is an address given by professor Cox to school students in an academic situation at a university streamed around the world. 3. I can understand how someone as stubborn and limited in intelligence as you doesn't want to gain modern knowledge and even blame the technology for the content. Again you are pathetic. There is a reason it was called the "idiot box." Mass media is written and prepared for children and adults tending children. "Man addresses students on basic science" is an idiotic reason to watch a video unless you have any relatives in the video. Oh Em Gee you are stupid. except that this is a video of a lecture by a world expert who is privy to ( and is working on) cutting edge physics and scientific knowledge which proves how the earth and its physical natural processes evolved and making this knowledge accessible to educate the world's young and scholars. The fact that you are uninterested in education and modern discoveries says more about you than anything else you daft old twit! BTW I am sure there is a transcript of both these videos you could read if you prefer...except that you don't want to pull your head out of either the sand, your dark ages mythology or your arse! |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 16, 2018 22:45:45 GMT
There is a reason it was called the "idiot box." Mass media is written and prepared for children and adults tending children. "Man addresses students on basic science" is an idiotic reason to watch a video unless you have any relatives in the video. Oh Em Gee you are stupid. except that this is a video of a lecture by a world expert who is privy to ( and is working on) cutting edge physics and scientific knowledge which proves how the earth and its physical natural processes evolved and making this knowledge accessible to educate the world's young and scholars. The fact that you are uninterested in education and modern discoveries says more about you than anything else you daft old twit! BTW I am sure there is a transcript of both these videos you could read if you prefer...except that you don't want to pull your head out of either the sand, your dark ages mythology ... It was obviously easier for "science" to impress you than for you to impress anyone else. Perhaps pause to consider what that might mean. I have paused myself as usual and am certain I am no less interested in education than you are. The story of the Earth's processes from primordial times till now was indeed sketchy in my classes, but even with constant efforts to remain apprised of new developments that story remains rather sketchy. Perhaps you could cite some detail you believe I missed. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 17, 2018 0:34:11 GMT
I don't believe the level of barbarity in the Old Testament was ordered by God. I don't believe God invented slaughtering infants for example. There were very barbaric practices that people considered a matter of course. The people of God were the first to avoid such practices, perhaps at first by turning them over to nonhuman agencies. I do not believe "God" is essentially anthropomorphic. I believe God's people were gradually steered away from that ancient world practice as well. The "God" of Judaism is more a system of ethics than a person. I suspect many "Christians" require an anthropomorphic Jesus because of their severe mental limitations. I am not the only person with these views. The more educated people are, the more likely they are to see things this way. Most people with any inkling of common sense, educated or not, would see things this way though and that is what many of the arguments on here are about, that what was written in the OT, was written by man and not a supernatural supreme being. Same as with the NT. Therefore, the bible IS NOT the word of God. Although I have not received any direct communication from any god myself, and I suspect many of the claims others have are mistaken, I do not dismiss all such claims out of hand. I don't consider your comments that the Bible is not the "word of God" necessarily more accurate or worthwhile than any other claims. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 17, 2018 1:16:24 GMT
Although I have not received any direct communication from any god myself, and I suspect many of the claims others have are mistaken, I do not dismiss all such claims out of hand. I don't consider your comments that the Bible is not the "word of God" necessarily more accurate or worthwhile than any other claims. Because then you would have to find facts to prove it, which started this discussion between us and what you claimed you are able to do, and I seriously doubt that you can in this instance. I have not claimed anything that needs proof. I have only offered my educated opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 17, 2018 1:42:51 GMT
I have not claimed anything that needs proof. I have only offered my educated opinions. Arlon: You claim you have a lot of training in proving things and can find certainties approaching absolutes. How can one prove the bible is the word of God, when a belief is not an absolute? This is supposedly your field and your own bold claim as to how impressive you feel you are Arlon. I indeed have excellent training in proving things and can find certainties approaching absolutes. That however is only for things in science. Some things are quite beyond science, a fact to which you seem to remain oblivious. I also can help with those matters since I am able to distinguish facts and opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 17, 2018 10:54:42 GMT
I indeed have excellent training in proving things and can find certainties approaching absolutes. That however is only for things in science. Some things are quite beyond science, a fact to which you seem to remain oblivious. I also can help with those matters since I am able to distinguish facts and opinions.
Most people on here do argue for facts to be presented due to personal opinion and just because you can distinguish between the 2, doesn't give you an out for not having your opinions challenged and it doesn't make them fact either, which is what you often appear to endorse as fact or truth, just because you say so.  Your problem is with relevance. You seem to think that it is relevant that much in the Bible cannot be proven. It is not relevant. Lots of things are beyond proof, yet we have to deal with them everyday. Science can only solve problems if people agree what the problem is. How many times do I have to repeat this? If everyone agrees that they want a bird house, science can recommend a good one to attract a specific bird to control a specific insect if that's what all the parties want. If people cannot agree whether to build a bird house, a lawn sprinkler, or a badminton court, science is useless. Science is useless for most issues in society. They become issues in society because people do not agree what the problem is. Your attempts to criticize the Bible because it isn't science are not relevant. Of course it isn't science and wouldn't be much use if it was. Eddy Hopper also had a problem with relevance. He seemed to think that it is relevant that a god is ultimately responsible for everything including evil. However "true" that might be, it is not relevant. It is possible that a god created independent agencies with the ability to make choices ultimately their own. Even human parents have children who make their own bad choices. Although it might be said the parents are responsible for "everything," at some point society puts the blame on their adult offspring. Society will continue to do that despite the complaints of slow people who hate religion. That you are enamored with "facts" is not the admirable quality you think it is. You are obviously disguising your opinions as facts too often, perhaps even to yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 17, 2018 11:43:02 GMT
... Because IT IS NOT science, it doesn't have any relevance. ...
Perhaps I haven't made clear how little it matters what you think and why it matters so little. You have no more "facts" than anyone else. Some claim they heard from god. You claim that's impossible. So far you are equally believable. Your opinion is not privileged. There might indeed be proof of communication from a god, but you had to be there to see it and you weren't there. It is very important that you understand that does not make it any less proof to the people who were there. Yes, many things are relevant without being science. I just explained how most issues in society are beyond science. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 17, 2018 12:01:10 GMT
Perhaps I haven't made clear how little it matters what you think and why it matters so little. You have no more "facts" than anyone else. Some claim they heard from god. You claim that's impossible. So far you are equally believable. Your opinion is not privileged. There might indeed be proof of communication from a god, but you had to be there to see it and you weren't there. It is very important that you understand that does not make it any less proof to the people who were there. Yes, many things are relevant without being science. I just explained how most issues in society are beyond science. What issues are beyond science Arlon? What are these issues and where are they? Do you have a point somewhere?
I am not claiming my opinions to be facts. All I am expressing is what I see as a fallacy from your own distorted logic. That doesn't mean that opinion of mine is right, but if ANY opinion gets challenged it is human nature to want it backed up with something that does resemble some inkling of coherence or truth and that is when the opinion starts to become privileged, if it starts to resonate. So far, much of what you have said to me hasn't. You start of with some interesting points, then often segue into self-absorbed and confound rhetoric based on personal and opinionated beliefs that are so darn easy to debunk due to lack of reasonable logic, that I don't even know why you bother half the time.
1) Everyone agrees they want a bird house. Can science help? Why or why not? How? 2) Different scenario, no one agrees whether to build a bird house, a lawn sprinkler, or a badminton court. Can science help? Why or why not? How? Which of those two is likely to become an issue in society? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 17, 2018 21:12:30 GMT
What issues are beyond science Arlon? What are these issues and where are they? Do you have a point somewhere?
I am not claiming my opinions to be facts. All I am expressing is what I see as a fallacy from your own distorted logic. That doesn't mean that opinion of mine is right, but if ANY opinion gets challenged it is human nature to want it backed up with something that does resemble some inkling of coherence or truth and that is when the opinion starts to become privileged, if it starts to resonate. So far, much of what you have said to me hasn't. You start of with some interesting points, then often segue into self-absorbed and confound rhetoric based on personal and opinionated beliefs that are so darn easy to debunk due to lack of reasonable logic, that I don't even know why you bother half the time.
1) Everyone agrees they want a bird house. Can science help? Why or why not? How? 2) Different scenario, no one agrees whether to build a bird house, a lawn sprinkler, or a badminton court. Can science help? Why or why not? How? Which of those two is likely to become an issue in society? Since 'science' (as you phrase it though you don't in fact know or understand what science is) led to the research and development of all the materials required to make a bird house, a lawn sprinkler and a badminton court and all the relevant design elements specific to their varied uses and applications as Toasted Cheese said.(about looking up the relevant information according to your need or desire to build any of these) Scientific research and development is an on-going process, though you seem to think that each person has to start from scratch because you can't trust previous scientific knowledge. You are wrong about this as you are in just about everything. The body of scientific knowledge has given society the choices that they have today ie whether to build a bird house, lawn sprinkler and badminton court, how to and what type for what. Should 'society' wish to build any of these, then 'science' ( using your terminology) has made it possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 17, 2018 21:47:20 GMT
1) Everyone agrees they want a bird house. Can science help? Why or why not? How? 2) Different scenario, no one agrees whether to build a bird house, a lawn sprinkler, or a badminton court. Can science help? Why or why not? How? Which of those two is likely to become an issue in society? Since 'science' (as you phrase it though you don't in fact know or understand what science is) led to the research and development of all the materials required to make a bird house, a lawn sprinkler and a badminton court and all the relevant design elements specific to their varied uses and applications as Toasted Cheese said.(about looking up the relevant information according to your need or desire to build any of these) Scientific research and development is an on-going process, though you seem to think that each person has to start from scratch because you can't trust previous scientific knowledge. You are wrong about this as you are in just about everything. The body of scientific knowledge has given society the choices that they have today ie whether to build a bird house, lawn sprinkler and badminton court, how to and what type for what. Should 'society' wish to build any of these, then 'science' ( using your terminology) has made it possible. You have a penchant for missing the point. The point is not a bird house. The bird house is just one material object that should help you visualize the abstract problem. The problem is that science cannot solve any issues in society as I have thoroughly explained. I have already agreed that science can help people build bird houses when they agree that is what needs to be done. Issues in society only become issues because people do not agree what needs to be done if anything. I've put the point in bold since you have so much trouble seeing it. Science deals with things that are not issues. No one argues what the boiling point of water is. There are no websites, "Water at standard pressure really boils at 109 degrees, here's why." It is plain to everyone that water at standard pressure boils at 100 degrees Centigrade or 212 degrees Fahrenheit. You have the mind of a small child. You think everything can be as resolved as the boiling point of water, that science can settle everything with the same certainty and universal acceptance. It cannot. It is not even remotely possible. That is the point. Here's a tip. If people are really arguing something, it isn't likely science yet and might never be. I do not regard what you think is science or is not science, nor would anyone who understands science. Your childish infatuation with science has not made you any better at science. In fact you give science a bad name. You are correct that when things are certain and universally accepted science is often the reason. You are wrong in calling things that are highly speculative on the frontiers of science anything but the speculation it obviously is. That is just as you are wrong in believing science can solve issues in society. You have the mind of a small child and you have accepted what you think is science without critical analysis much like a small child accepts what parents say. You need to grow up. You need to notice that your "team" has lost its way. Blind acceptance of things you think are "science" can be every bit as bad or worse than blind acceptance of anything else. |
|
