So there is this
“Inspirational Image” making the rounds on social media.
Ok…
This bothers me. I understand it is supposed to make the
thought of death easier, more palatable even.
However I find this to be, for the most part a Not Good
Thing™.
My issue is, in main, that it attempts to both relegate
humans to the role of subservient ‘pet’ and to make that sound appealing. Your
death is of no consequence because once you pass over you will be with your
master. This idea also implicitly de-values life, and the effort to keep it.
Is the best answer to give a man concerned about his looming death, “Don’t
worry, as soon as you can escape this pain and horror you will get a scratch on
the head and a cookie.” How does that idea; that the answer to (a completely
rational) fear is to just accept your Heavenly Reward, jive with the whole
sanctity of life idea?
How about we treat the sickness? How about we apply every
single thing we have at our disposal to lessen suffering, pain, and death. But
to do that, we would have to make a couple of, what for theist seem to be,
uncomfortable assumptions.
First, that we can trust science. That through
biology and medical study we can actually change things about our own bodies
and the world around us.
Secondly, and this seems to be a big one, that not
only can we affect this changes but that we have a moral obligation to do so.
That when presented with a choice/challenge; be it medical, social, or
political WE have not only the ability to make decisions based on relative data…but
we have the obligation to do so. To accept that we have accountability to
ourselves and our fellow humans for these choices, and not to shunt that responsibility
to some other entity.
In this instance, I am to find ‘inspirational’ the idea that
if I just blindly love something I cannot see, then all things shall be well in
the end?
Sorry, I want my doctor more worried about my white blood cell count than my
relationship with the kennel owner in the sky.
As always, I ask that if you don't agree with me...please, please speak up. I want to have discussions with folks that see thing differently.
Feel free to comment, just please keep it to a low roar...OK?
Ok, So I know it's been a while since I wrote a Musings.
Mostly I have been sticking to FB and (gasp) Meat Space.
But ya might have heard about this little debate 'tween a couple of guys.
Bill Nye (THE SCIENCE GUY) and Ken Ham (The anything-but-science guy).
It was good...have a look if ya missed it.
For as long as it's up. Ken Ham and his Creation Museum(man, that is weird to type...) plan to sell DVD's at a pretty steep price, and of course they will then take the video down before doing so.
But that Dear Reader is not why we are here...these fine folks are.
Matt Stopera, of BuzzFeed asked 22 folks to jot down queries to Bill Nye prior to the debate.
I want to attempt to personally answer these folks, and hope that there is some kind of discourse.
So...
Off to the races we go!!
I
would say he is. I mean…it’s not like he is advocating the idea that
non-scientist be stoned? Or sent to hell? I mean….what’s the worst christendom
has done? Oh yeah…The Crusades...right.
Are
you scared of evidence? To the point wherein willful ignorance of the observable
is to be even more ‘cherry-picked” than your holy text? (BTW>Passive aggressive
much?) This is not so much a question as it is a trap. If no, then Heretic: if yes, then False Believer.
Yes.
Yes it is. Sorry, but there is no model (other than, god did it!) that could
even support that idea. Please give me one tiny shred of any kind that supports this idea...from anything other than a religious text.
Next two are so related they get the same answer...
[Note:
Could this guy above look more condescending?]
Does your understanding of
Thermodynamics come from a fortune cookie? There is this thing called Sol…ya
know…that big ball of plasma in the sky? It is constantly introducing energy
into the open system we call Earth. Open System...as in...energy being constantly added, ergo the 'increased entropy' problem is moot. I don't think you mean what you think you mean....but nice shot at using science to disprove science.
Really? Are we having this discussion in 21st or 15th century? One word: Heliocentric!
I assume, I hope correctly, you are referring to the idea of the 'Noetic effect' from Original Sin.
Pretty much as disproven as everything else Aristotle ever said. Look, Big A offered up some insights, and postulated the best ideas his observations and data could provide, but as we have gathered more data Aristotle's ideas have fallen away.
The next three are going to get the same response from me...
Philosophic arguments? Ya want meaning? I find mine in Green Lantern #256.
Is the world less amazing because of the fact we can observe and predict it? Or more so? These are ‘feeling’/philosophical arguments which, by their nature, are unsupportable by evidence, and empowered by willful ignorance of natural process.
You’re
using bunk and fluff to support your idea. Please, evidence or at least the semblance of it...K?
Right
now, we don’t know 100%. Chance is a good answer. Or as chance is more properly known...probability. Rattle enough chemicals around in a super-heated fluid long enough and things start bonding/breaking in interesting chemical reactions.
Ok...that's clever and cute. Quick put it on a card!! And? Are you so unwilling to have your views questioned that you use statements of surety as queries? I am willing to be queried and offer sources to defend my statements, not witty zingers.(Well...not JUST witty zingers..) I don't know what else to say here...
Ummm…we
don’t. Those views exist way outside of accepted science. James Cameron is notrepresentative of the scientific community. Prometheus was a work of fiction, and a not very
good one IMHO.
Once again...we got a Two-fer!
Ok...you folks are just really mis-informed. Examples of more than 300 individuals of Australopithecus Afarensis have been discovered so far in Tanzania, Kenya and Ethiopia. None of them has been as complete as Lucy, however we do agree 300>1...right? Please? http://www.columbia.edu/.../web/australopithecus/austro.html
Yup. Just as much or more so than non-metamorphosing organisms. Why do you think it doesn't? I'd really like to hear the rest of this...genuinely curious.
I am putting the next two together...since they are the same question again.
Sigh. One more time, all together now… A Theory (note the capital T?) as used by the scientific community doesn't mean a WAG. [WAG=Wild Ass Guess]. The definition is: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Please note, this is exactly the opposite of the manner which this stated in the second version of this question. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2
In no way does Creationism fit the definition of a Theory.
Not even a little bit....
Actually a pretty good question...although it seems to be predicated on what I can only assume is an incomplete understanding of the idea. Gene duplication (or chromosomal duplication or gene amplification) is a major mechanism through which new genetic material is generated during molecular evolution. It can be defined as any duplication of a region of DNA that contains a gene. Gene duplications can arise as products of several types of errors in DNA replication and repair machinery as well as through fortuitous capture by selfish genetic elements. Common sources of gene duplication include ectopic homologous recombination, aneuploidy, polyploidy, and replication slippage. However, again I point out...good question.
Yup. Can you believe in gravity without faith? Both are borne out by extensive testing, modeling and tons and tons of very head hurting math. We do agree math is a thing...right?
(BTW> One star made the cosmos? Dude...order of magnitude much?) Please review this… http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
I mean…I’d offer more on this but. Would it help at this point?
OK....ready for the big one?
This one makes my teeth itch....
Le Sigh.
We did not come from monkeys, nor apes, nor yabba dabba do.
All primates (which YOU AND I are) share a common progenitor.
There are still monkeys because they still fill a niche and have not been out competed.
Just like why there are still catfish even though there are trout.
Really....we did not come from monkeys.
Please stop thinking that.
Please find out what you hate so much....I read your source material, the only one Ham and other YEC accept. Yes the bible.
I am touching one right now.
