An Explanation for Why You Cannot Win

[Donald H]

And I absolutely don't begrudge his choice. For him, his lifestyle fits...more power to him for doing so.
But I like driving. Cross country trips are a major part of my life and lifestyle. I live in Nashville but enjoy trips to Chicago, St Louis and Gulf Coast states and even out west. I'm looking currently at trying to obtain some machine shop equipment... I am likely going to have to rent and drive a large truck or get a trailer to haul whatever machine I find for sale....each weighs a metric ton and are rather fragile...so I'd rather do the hauling myself.
Currently there is no other way to do this affordably and conveniently without an ICE vehicle. (My PU truck)

If there was....I'd probably do so.

And too, I think any machine shop equipment you need can be hauled by a half ton P.U. truck. 3 tons?

 

[notmyfault2020]

The Irony!

yeh, card carrying member of Politics-First Party

accuses others of liking their own, opposing party

that's libs 4 ya

 

[Donald H]

yeh, card carrying member of Politics-First Party

accuses others of liking their own, opposing party

that's libs 4 ya

Part of the OP's intent could have been to draw out the stupidest!

 

[JohnDB]

I think he might be right on that, because he's offered it as a part of making his point.

I really don't know how that applies to a person's ability to learn. But let's not get into an explanation that won't do it justice.

I think the creation/evolution question can serve for getting some answers here.

Do you know if 'string theory' is understood by people under 20 or is it more likely that it's understood later in life? Keeping in mind of course that the 'understanding' isn't total understanding.

Okay,
No clue about string theory...I don't even understand a thing about it. A millennial? I really don't think that they understand anything beyond their cell phone.

Creation?
This is an ongoing discussion and debate that fits as well as an example.
However...both parties are guilty of making leaps in logic that are not reasonable. To be fair, the Bible tells those that believe in God to take His word for it and they do...so at least they have that.
However the transition creatures that evolution requires are missing from the fossile record. And since we cannot find evidence that proves evolution of genus to another genus the Creationists claim victory and the evolutionists claim an explanation why there is no fossile record.

But neither has verifiable and irrefutable proof of their position and belief.

Me?
Don't know and don't care...I wasn't there and just because I belive God did it doesn't mean that I know HOW He did it because He didn't explain that. Which brings up the point that the Bible is not a manual for how to create...it's an absolute misuse of the book to claim anything outside of its purpose which is morality lessons.

You cannot use the Constitution of America to determine the rules and bylaws of a bowling league...nor should someone use the Bible to determine the precise manner of how life evolved on this planet.

 

[Donald H]

Okay,
No clue about string theory...I don't even understand a thing about it. A millennial? I really don't think that they understand anything beyond their cell phone.

Creation?
This is an ongoing discussion and debate that fits as well as an example.
However...both parties are guilty of making leaps in logic that are not reasonable. To be fair, the Bible tells those that believe in God to take His word for it and they do...so at least they have that.
However the transition creatures that evolution requires are missing from the fossile record.

No they are not missing. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples. But still, some haven't been discovered, as would be expected. Humans are one of the best examples.

And since we cannot find evidence that proves evolution of genus to another genus the Creationists claim victory and the evolutionists claim an explanation why there is no fossile record.

There is plenty of evidence of speciation over more than a billion years.

But neither has verifiable and irrefutable proof of their position and belief.

Me?
Don't know and don't care...I wasn't there and just because I belive God did it doesn't mean that I know HOW He did it because He didn't explain that. Which brings up the point that the Bible is not a manual for how to create...it's an absolute misuse of the book to claim anything outside of its purpose which is morality lessons.

I can accept that you don't care.

You cannot use the Constitution of America to determine the rules and bylaws of a bowling league...nor should someone use the Bible to determine the precise manner of how life evolved on this planet.

And now you care again.
I agree. Nobody should use the bible to determine anything about evolution.

 

[BackAgain]

That was interesting. thanks. Everyone should at least hear/read the last part from 11:50 on..

BTW.. I wonder if George Carlin saw the irony in him talking about stupid people.. how you can think of the stupidest person you know.. how most people are even "stupider"

OK, I guess there must be such a word as Stupider.. since the red squiggly lines didn't appear. But I myself think the word Stupider sounds... stupid.. grammatically incorrect. Who knows? Maybe someone added it to some modern dictionary not realizing it was.. so stupid

Here’s a weird analog. Seriously, most of us reasonably (and accurately) believe that Hitler was evil and insane :: but I suspect that Hitler had not the vaguest clue that he was insane.

 

[JohnDB]

No they are not missing. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples. But still, some haven't been discovered, as would be expected. Humans are one of the best examples.

There is plenty of evidence of speciation over more than a billion years.

I can accept that you don't care.

And now you care again.
I agree. Nobody should use the bible to determine anything about evolution.

Ummmm

Just so you understand...you are picking a side on a fruitless debate that by default is not a viable discussion does give an observer a solid reason to discount any assertion you present.

Go back, watch the video several times if necessary. Then come back again.

 

[Donald H]

Ummmm

Just so you understand...you are picking a side on a fruitless debate that by default is not a viable discussion does give an observer a solid reason to discount any assertion you present.

Go back, watch the video several times if necessary. Then come back again.

Sorry John but you don't understand what I'm telling you.

If you have something to debate then just state it.
If it pertains to the title of the thread, I may get into it with you.

How about the fact that, as a rule, as intelligence increases, belief in creation decreases?

 

[JohnDB]

Sorry John but you don't understand what I'm telling you.

If you have something to debate then just state it.
If it pertains to the title of the thread, I may get into it with you.

How about the fact that, as a rule, as intelligence increases, belief in creation decreases?

That's due to peer pressure more than reliable facts...
Which goes to prove the actual point of my OP.

You are unable to conceive the concept that previously assimilated data drew illogical conclusions and created leaps of conclusions that bypassed logical progression. And furthermore you claim the superior logical conclusion with two logical fallacies....(no true scottsman and the "herd must be correct"...I'm forgetting the proper name of the latter fallacy)

However...I do appreciate that you have provided a look into this phenomenon. The video does give a great look into why the education of children needs to be more challenging and more varied for the betterment of a society. Of course not all children will immediately benefit or use their educations until they develop a desire to do so. But the ability to learn is very much dependent upon nurture...the nature elements have been previously discerned by a New Zealand study.

 

[Donald H]

That's due to peer pressure more than reliable facts...

I don't understand what you're tying to say on 'peer pressure'.

how can peer pressure enter into statistical evidence?

Meta-analysis of 83 studies produces 'very strong' evidence for a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity

New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific

www.psypost.org

 

[Indeependent]

I don't understand what you're tying to say on 'peer pressure'.

how can peer pressure enter into statistical evidence?

Meta-analysis of 83 studies produces 'very strong' evidence for a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity

New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific

www.psypost.org

I was wondering why so many religious Jews keep creating better technology; because they’re stupid!

 

[Donald H]

I was wondering why so many religious Jews keep creating better technology; because they’re stupid!

It's never been a secret that if a child is indoctrinated into accepting superstitious beliefs in childhood, he/she will be captured by religion for life.

And now it's becoming increasingly obvious that if the indoctrination isn't accomplished in childhood, the child willl have a much better chance of escaping from religious perversions.

Parents not allowing their children to make their own choice as teens is child abuse.

 

[Indeependent]

It's never been a secret that if a child is indoctrinated into accepting superstitious beliefs in childhood, he/she will be captured by religion for life.

And now it's becoming increasingly obvious that if the indoctrination isn't accomplished in childhood, the child willl have a much better chance of escaping from religious perversions.

Parents not allowing their children to make their own choice as teens is child abuse.

Most of the atheists I meet are indoctrinated to not accept any fact within context.

 

[JohnDB]

I don't understand what you're tying to say on 'peer pressure'.

how can peer pressure enter into statistical evidence?

Meta-analysis of 83 studies produces 'very strong' evidence for a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity

New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific

www.psypost.org

It's not really the issue...
It does have everything to do with the fact that you do not question what you know and try to re-evaluate the irrefutable and verifiable evidence in existence...you insist that your conclusions are correct even though you cannot reproduce the conclusions which you have come to through any experimentation or case study.
Horse plus a donkey still produces a sterile mule over thousands of years of trying to get a different result. I'm not saying that evolution hasn't happened either...just that there is proof in the existence of more species than what is currently in existence and so there must currently be de-evolution in motion.
Was there a period of evolution? How long did evolution last? What was the catalyst for evolution? What has caused de-evolution?

And ultimately why are you not asking these questions is proof of the video in the OP being correct.