In Defense of the Marriage

Originally Posted by Jerrek

The fact that you can get readings from the same rock ranging from 100 years to 1 billion years indicate just how inaccurate it is.

Carbon dating is not used for dating rocks.

http://www.awitness.org/bible_commen...on_dating.html

Yes. Note the word theory, meaning, it has never been proven.

Scientific theories are never *proven*, they are simply the most "refined" version which is currently available with the present state of knowledge and tools that can be used to test them.

Newton came up with a theory of gravity that worked perfectly well until Einstein came along with relativity. This does *not*, however mean that Newton was wrong.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...www/node8.html

You are entitled to your beliefs of course but to base a rational argument on the book of Genesis is very dangerous territory.

Why does this sound like Ali G saying "Is it 'cos I's black"?

Just as he inappropriately "played the race card", so you are inappropriately playing the religion card. What JustAnotherN00b said has *nothing* to do with being "offended" by your religion, nor that he feels "threatened" by it. It most *certainly* doesn't say anything about denying freedom of religion!

What it *does* say is that any rational person will *not* base an argument on a single source of information, but will check and corroborate it with other sources and test it against known or knowable facts to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

This is, in a nutshell, the *scientific* process whereby theories are tested and validated, something which is an *on going* process as new research techniques and ideas are developed.

Anyone who stands up and says "I have discovered the final, absolute and unadulterated truth" is just asking to be laughed at.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Just out of interest.... http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Oh deary me, are people *still* shooting at a totally discredited target?!

Quoting from "The Science of Discworld":

"The question is often asked in the form 'What use is half an eye?', to which you are expected to conclude 'nothing', followed by a rapid conversion to some religion or other. 'Nothing' is a reasonable answer -- but to the wrong question"

The fact of the matter is that the question should be *can* an eye develop to its current form from basic principles? And the answer to that is *yes*.

A study of eye-like structures will show anyone who has an open mind that an eye can evolve from a basic light sensitive patch to a fully functioning optical structure by simple changes.

http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

Unfortunately those who want to deny evolution work this backwards by looking at the *finished* product and saying "but if we removed *this* bit it wouldn't work!" which makes as much sense as saying "This cathedral *must* have been created by God and couldn't have 'evolved' from the design of a mud hut, because if we took out *this* pillar the whole thing would fall down!"

See http://www.2think.org/eye_response.shtml for some more interesting stuff...

[Jerrek]

Then shoot away.

[Ignition]

I wonder if the Greeks and Romans had the same sorts of discussions about their mythologies when they were abandoning them, probably did Christianity is our modern equivalent.

Still on the other hand I guess it still helps comfort those who otherwise would fear dying, we are after all the only race apart from Dolphins that as far as we know has enough temporal lobe development to be able to contemplate our own death and be aware of our mortality. That's what it all comes down to really though isn't it? Believing in something to try and console oneself that when you shed off the mortal coil there's something else waiting for you. FWIW I believe that, though not in the Christian sense. I'd bet the Greeks and Romans had equally persuasive arguments and proof of the existence of Jupiter/Zeus.

Wonder what the Dolphins' religion is, maybe they are strong enough to pull themselves through life without requiring the crutch of prayer, a higher purpose, a higher power, nor convincing themselves that they are immortal.

Either way this argument has hit an empass now, as most do as soon as religion is brought into the equation. Usually religion starts arguments (and wars) rather than close them.

Jerrek - your irrational hiding behind a blind faith, your inconsistent, inflexible and inconsiderate views of the world around you, and your facist using absolutely in this case as it's absolutely true, I dare someone to disagree views are among the most un-Christian I've seen, you care nothing for those less fortunate than you, yet claim that the book of Genesis is absolute fact. How you can have so little regard for your fellow human being yet call yourself a true Christian because you can blindly hide behind a book is completely beyond me, and I hope that age and what will probably be quite bitter and painful experience teach you in every possible way that your view of the world and the people within it will bring you at best indifference and at worst anger from others.

Hopefully though they will be more flexible, reasonable and tolerant in their views than you are.

I'm just bluntly saying what a lot of people are thinking...

P.S. Shooting as requested *bang*

[Jerrek]

You're raping the definition of fascist again. Should we look it up in a dictionary? Please clarify how I'm fascist.

you care nothing for those less fortunate than you

Fascinating. Do you know what I eat for breakfast too? Dare I ask how you know this and make this claim as a fact?


If flexible means accepting evolution (which hasn't been proven), then no, I'm not flexible. Just because I don't conform to YOUR cookie-cutter view of the world doesn't mean I am not flexible. Instead if means YOU are the inflexible one.

[Jerrek]

Actually, lets see what fascism is:

"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."
- From "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus"

"fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government."

Now explain to me how I support transferring control of property to the government. Please.

Fascism/Nazism:

"Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.

"The dictionary definition of fascism is: "a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism"[The American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957.]

"Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it--at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.

"Needless to say, under either system, the inequalities of income and standard of living are greater than anything possible under a free economy--and a man's position is determined, not by his productive ability and achievement, but by political pull and force."

Quoting Ayn Rand from: The Fascist New Frontier, pamphlet, p. 5

and

"Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property--so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

"If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a contentless deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property de jure. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership de facto."

From: The Ominous Parallels, ch. 9, pb.18, by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, C. 1982

Hello fascism:

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

(Nazi party platform adopted at Munich, February 24, 1920;Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31).

Now I'm awaiting your response to how I fit into this.

I strongly suspect that you dislike me, or my opinion, or how I form my opinion, or a mixture of these, and at this point you're grasping at straws which is slipping from your hand, and your last desperate act is to start throwing in random descriptors that you know little or nothing about, similar to how Sociable laughed at me pointing out that fascism and socialism are both left-wing systems, without actually providing factual evidence that says something to the contrary.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

You're raping the definition of fascist again. Should we look it up in a dictionary? Please clarify how I'm fascist.


Fascinating. Do you know what I eat for breakfast too? Dare I ask how you know this and make this claim as a fact?


If flexible means accepting evolution (which hasn't been proven), then no, I'm not flexible. Just because I don't conform to YOUR cookie-cutter view of the world doesn't mean I am not flexible. Instead if means YOU are the inflexible one.

Just read the stuff you've posted about how those who don't contribute don't vote, those who have paid into a social security fund don't get back what they have paid in, your attitude towards welfare, your comments on USA wanting brightest and best, others being irrelevant.

My view of the world isn't cookie cutter, I just give a fsck about those who I have no direct contact with, but appreciate I have a responsibility to as we are all above all else citizens of the human race, not just American, Canadian, English, whatever.

Regarding facism: semantics and exact meanings aside you have wonderfully intolerant views of those who don't work, you are so insanely to the right it's pretty much fitting with a common albeit incorrect view of facism.

I think your view will change a lot when you grow up, let's just say that much, though I do think you'll fit in quite nicely in the deep south of the US.

[Jerrek]

That makes near zero sense. First,

those who have paid into a social security fund don't get back what they have paid in

Citation please.

your attitude towards welfare

Is exactly the opposite of:

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

your comments on USA wanting brightest and best

As should any nation. How does this relate to fascism by the way?

but appreciate I have a responsibility to as we are all above all else citizens of the human race

Hmmm, nice, but I don't buy into that. I don't have any authority over other nations and the citizens, nor do I wish to bugger into their business. It is their business, not mine. If they ask for help, then we may consider interfering. If they threaten an ally or myself, then we may consider interfering. How does this relate to fascism?

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Regarding facism: semantics and exact meanings aside

No. No. NO. You will not brush this aside by dismissing it as semantics. I'm awaiting an explanation how I am a fascist. Please. I want exact meanings.

you have wonderfully intolerant views of those who don't work

Explain?

you are so insanely to the right it's pretty much fitting with a common albeit incorrect view of facism.

Explain. Please. Please please please explain how I'm a fascist. PLEASE. I've outlined fascism above. From Hitler's own mouth.

I think your view will change a lot when you grow up, let's just say that much, though I do think you'll fit in quite nicely in the deep south of the US.

Oh I do. I really do. I get along very well, as long as I don't mention other guys look cute.

[Jerrek]

More food for thought:

For many decades, the leftists have been propagating the false dichotomy that the choice confronting the world is only: communism or fascism--a dictatorship of the left or of an alleged right--with the possibility of a free society, of capitalism, dismissed and obliterated, as if it had never existed.

From: The Presidential Candidates 1968, by Ayn Rand, in The Objectivist, June 1968, 5.

Indeed. I'm right, not left. I'm a capitalist, not a fascist/communist.


More info regarding the marriage of communism and fascism:

It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis--with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.
From: 'Extremism,' or The Art of Smearing, Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand C. 1966

And of course, the killer part:

It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of 'Freedom or dictatorship?' into 'Which kind of dictatorship?' --thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice--according to the proponents of that fraud--is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).

It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory--that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state--that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders--that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique--that fascism is not the product of the political 'right,' but of the 'left'--that the basic issue is not 'rich versus poor,' but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government--which means: capitalism versus socialism.

From: 'Extremism,' or The Art of Smearing, Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand C. 1966

[Jerrek]

I'm going to bed now. I do believe that the marriage discussing is over, and has been for quite some time, so I don't mind changing the subject a bit of this thread.

For those of you that are blowing off steam regarding my posts: Please don't attack the author. Rather, attack the arguments she is presenting and provide your own to substantiate your beliefs should you be disagreeing with me. It just so happens that I am a very big fan of Ayn Rand and that she states the arguments better than I can, hence all the quotes.

Just dismissing it as "semantics" as JustAnotherNoob did isn't exactly a valid argument in a philosophical discussion.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

The choice--according to the proponents of that fraud--is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism)

Your attitude towards the unemployed, your opinion that there should be equal % tax paid by all therefore transferring less wealth from rich to poor, complete incomprehension that you may ever come to rely on the state and will always be employed and relatively wealthy, your support of George Bush and his cabinet, which is certainly a somewhat less than democratically elected dictatorship of the rich, they seem to be as often as not millionaires, and certainly are quite happy to line pockets of the rich at the expense of those who will end up paying for the borrowing.

I would love to go to bed, sadly not an option right now, however I'm not posting any further on this now, I've said my piece, and certainly consider neo-conservatism and far-right views such as yours pretty close to facism. As I said before hopefully experience will teach you a little humanity and humility, maybe even a taste of the real world rather than hiding behind the good book and a belief that life will always be good, and you will always be on the higher side of life, employed and independently solvent without having to rely on anyone else. The real world will bite you in the backside in a big way one day.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

your opinion that there should be equal % tax paid by all therefore transferring less wealth from rich to poor.

Why should more of my wealth be transferred to the 'poor'?

[BBKing]

Explain. Please. Please please please explain how I'm a fascist. PLEASE. I've outlined fascism above. From Hitler's own mouth.

I'm puzzled here. You're using Hitler's words to support your argument that you're not a fascist? I can't help feeling this rather undermines your position. Either you believe him which means you're extremely gullible or a Hitler supporter, or you don't believe them in which case why hell use them to support your argument?

I'll read the rest later. One or two interesting points raised.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

The fact that you can get readings from the same rock ranging from 100 years to 1 billion years indicate just how inaccurate it is.

You are aware that carbon dating isn`t used to date rocks? I'd hate to think you were spouting off about something that you don`t know anything about again. I trust you also know that carbon dating can only measure over a limited time-frame, and *no* scientist would make the claim that it can date something 1 billion years old. At the very best it can date things within a range up to 100,000 years from present, and that is only using some advanced techniques.

Try again