moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited October 2008
Any discussion of tax policy should be aware of this fact. When you add up all taxes, sales tax, income tax, social security, etc. It turns out that we don't have a progressive tax at all. We have <a href="http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st310/st310.pdf" target="_blank">an approximate flat tax at around 40%</a>.
Also, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s" target="_blank">Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=1691091:date=Oct 22 2008, 01:47 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Oct 22 2008, 01:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691091"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Any discussion of tax policy should be aware of this fact. When you add up all taxes, sales tax, income tax, social security, etc. It turns out that we don't have a progressive tax at all. We have <a href="http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st310/st310.pdf" target="_blank">an approximate flat tax at around 40%</a>.
Also, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s" target="_blank">Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that's actually the heart of one of my arguments. It's hard to tax the rich, because they're rich for a reason: they know how to work the system, and they'll find the path of least resistance. Trickle down might not work wonders, but neither does forcing the top earners to fork over more in taxes. Either they'll find a way not to fork it over, or you kill incentive to make that much money, or some combination there of. It's like cracker's vs copy right protection: it just hurt the end user. At least if you don't make up all these convoluted laws to try and tax the rich, I will be able to do my own taxes without my head exploding. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1691093:date=Oct 22 2008, 12:59 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 22 2008, 12:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691093"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And that's actually the heart of one of my arguments. It's hard to tax the rich, because they're rich for a reason: they know how to work the system, and they'll find the path of least resistance. Trickle down might not work wonders, but neither does forcing the top earners to fork over more in taxes. Either they'll find a way not to fork it over, or you kill incentive to make that much money, or some combination there of. It's like cracker's vs copy right protection: it just hurt the end user. At least if you don't make up all these convoluted laws to try and tax the rich, I will be able to do my own taxes without my head exploding. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> One thing you'll note in that video though is that Warren buffet doesn't do anything complicated to avoid taxes, no tax shelters, or complicated accounting. He still ends up paying only 17%.
I'm far too exhausted to read all of these essays, but from my light skimming it seems like tax brackets / percentages were brought up frequently. That topic reminds me of <a href="http://www.wisebread.com/bar-stool-economics-0" target="_blank">bar stool economics</a>, written by an Econ professor at Georgia. While not 100% accurate, it does raise some interesting points.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1691095:date=Oct 22 2008, 02:24 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 22 2008, 02:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691095"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm far too exhausted to read all of these essays, but from my light skimming it seems like tax brackets / percentages were brought up frequently. That topic reminds me of <a href="http://www.wisebread.com/bar-stool-economics-0" target="_blank">bar stool economics</a>, written by an Econ professor at Georgia. While not 100% accurate, it does raise some interesting points.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks for that article. It was interesting. You can only carry the analogy so far, but it was a good read.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1691062:date=Oct 22 2008, 01:00 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Oct 22 2008, 01:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691062"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's hardly a coincidence that columnists are attempting to cover for Obama at this point. His wealth redistribution language has put him in the tightest spot since the primaries. Of course, there's plenty of "there" there but the Mccain campaign is full of bungling idiots who can't articulate the consequences of Obama's ideologies.
Have a look at <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=" target="_blank">some evidence to back it up.</a>
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't intend that article to be conclusive, however nor do I think that it's particularly trying to "cover" for him. It is nevertheless an interesting point that socialists are on record saying Obama is not one of them.
<!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 03:29 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 03:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not currently accepted theory by the scientific world. Though that's how it has always been before a major scientific discovery. Take ghosts for instance. Most of the scientific community completely denies its existence despite overwhelming evidence to suggest there might be something to that effect. Not to say that ghosts necessarily exist. It's perfectly reasonable to think they don't. However, had it been the question of whether or not a certain species of insect existed, you'd easily see a hundred times the number of scientists investigating and searching for evidence to support the fact that they exist or not.
There's just too much evidence to simply not investigate if you were a good scientist. If not ghosts, some other phenomenon, scientific or otherwise could be uncovered from such evidence. How many scientists do you see tackling the issue with scientific method? There is substantial evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted to an extent. They've uncovered a good many smooth stones from rivers in central america with markings of various species of dinosaurs which are atomically correct. Footprints have been found which have both been dated to be around the same time period. <a href="http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm" target="_blank">Evidence</a>. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2704" target="_blank">More evidence</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no scientific validity to creationist claims. They have been refuted again and again by a whole range of extremely qualified scientists. You claim that the problem is that, as with "ghosts", there has been no proper scientific investigation into the matter for it to be dismissed. Which is simply not the case, particularly with creationist claims.
First of all, it is in many cases, not at all necessary to investigate these claims, simply because there already exists an incredibly large quantity of existing research, with vast amounts of supporting evidence, that already show creationist claims to have no scientific basis in reality.
Second of all, when creationists do propose something that is genuinely scientifically testable and has not already shown to be false, it will get properly tested. This does not happen often.
After all, why are "creation scientists" spending so much time ineffectually trying to prove evolution wrong rather than doing proper scientific research themselves and submitting it to a proper, respected journal?
<!--quoteo(post=1691094:date=Oct 22 2008, 02:08 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Oct 22 2008, 02:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691094"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One thing you'll note in that video though is that Warren buffet doesn't do anything complicated to avoid taxes, no tax shelters, or complicated accounting. He still ends up paying only 17%.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not just as simple as loopholes and tax shelters. Warren Buffet is smart enough to calculate his own flat tax rate, would you agree? Since he cares about such things, he's got incentive to lower that tax rate as much as he can. In fact, that's probably a big reason why he is rich to begin with. He watches every penny, and he doesn't let go of money he doesn't have to. So he buys in gross, probably from places that have lower tax rates. He shops around, he avoids high luxury taxes, and he doesn't buy stuff frivolously. The same may not be able to be said about his secretary. Of course, she may have kids to buy food for and all that. Responsibilities of a parent are unavoidable.
But still you can see that the really wealthy people are always going to be wealthy, because that's their goal in life. It seems like my goal in life is argue foolishly on a forum while trying uselessly to engineer software, but Warren Buffet - he's a man with a plan.
[edit] As far as your video, if we take it as canon, then there are some irregularities somewhere, as my link seems to run contrary to yours. Maybe it's just the way it's presented. Warren Buffet is hugely rich, but maybe his secretaries are paid very well in comparison to, say, me. I'm probably closer to lower-middle than middle-middle class.
Also, you can be sure that Warren Buffet still pays quite a bit more in gross money to the tax system than probably his whole office staff combined. Whether or not that's fair is still up to debate.
<!--quoteo(post=1691095:date=Oct 22 2008, 02:24 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 22 2008, 02:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691095"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm far too exhausted to read all of these essays, but from my light skimming it seems like tax brackets / percentages were brought up frequently. That topic reminds me of <a href="http://www.wisebread.com/bar-stool-economics-0" target="_blank">bar stool economics</a>, written by an Econ professor at Georgia. While not 100% accurate, it does raise some interesting points.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1691096:date=Oct 22 2008, 03:09 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 22 2008, 03:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691096"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thanks for that article. It was interesting. You can only carry the analogy so far, but it was a good read.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's very simplified, but that's what an abstraction is. It manages to capture the core issues and the battle lines of the tax debate. The rich get more money from tax cuts, but a (usually) smaller percentage. Numerically, percentages are fair. Intuitively, gross savings is fair. It's really hard to come to a consensus on this kind of topic. It's like my Dad's construction company: he never co-owned with anyone, because how do you divide up the profits? You have to take into account who owns which pieces of equipment, who brought that equipment to the job site, who got the contract to begin with, who kept the customer happy, etc. It's much more complicated than who put in what hours, and eventually, you have to make some simplifying assumptions, just like in any science.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1691104:date=Oct 22 2008, 02:53 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 22 2008, 02:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691104"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didn't intend that article to be conclusive, however nor do I think that it's particularly trying to "cover" for him. It is nevertheless an interesting point that socialists are on record saying Obama is not one of them. There is no scientific validity to creationist claims. They have been refuted again and again by a whole range of extremely qualified scientists. You claim that the problem is that, as with "ghosts", there has been no proper scientific investigation into the matter for it to be dismissed. Which is simply not the case, particularly with creationist claims.
First of all, it is in many cases, not at all necessary to investigate these claims, simply because there already exists an incredibly large quantity of existing research, with vast amounts of supporting evidence, that already show creationist claims to have no scientific basis in reality.
Second of all, when creationists do propose something that is genuinely scientifically testable and has not already shown to be false, it will get properly tested. This does not happen often.
After all, why are "creation scientists" spending so much time ineffectually trying to prove evolution wrong rather than doing proper scientific research themselves and submitting it to a proper, respected journal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a Christian, I think Creation Scientists need to STFU, as well as folks who want creation taught in schools.
<!--quoteo(post=1691104:date=Oct 22 2008, 09:53 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 22 2008, 09:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691104"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After all, why are "creation scientists" spending so much time ineffectually trying to prove evolution wrong rather than doing proper scientific research themselves and submitting it to a proper, respected journal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some would claim that there's a giant conspiracy against creationist ideas, so any paper submitted would get rejected outright unless the paper was perfect. Then again, what paper is perfect nowadays except in special ideal circumstances and with such and such margin of error?
However, perhaps you're not giving either side enough credit. On one hand, creationists are not quacks. There are several people who do real science in the field who like the idea of creation. Not saying they're right, but don't try ti disregard creationists are nutjobs idiots who just spend their time trying to debunk something as a past time because they don't know any better. Plus, there are real problems that are being worked on. On the other hand, the scientific community has time and time again been able to disprove or explain a variety of "problems" brought up. Many of the "problems" come from a misguided understanding of science. So, often if someone comes out as a creationist, it throws up a giant red flag. Basically, things with creationist ideas are checked over pretty quickly since the majority are bogus. However, every scientist worth their salt is willing to accept creationist ideas if there's solid proof behind them, so don't pass them off as a conspiring cult as much as the scientific community may seem at times.
Of course, in the end, neither side can prove anything. One might even argue both are right, they just differ on their perspective. For example, the evolutionist looks at the holes in the fossil record and says stuff hasn't been found yet or there was a burst of change. Creationist might say divine intervention. Or, genetic similarities to an evolutionist mean we all had the same genetic code in the past. Creationists merely says the creator built in similarities. Also, so what if evolution is real now, does that prove it happened in the past? Weird philosophical question, but legitimate.
However, no one in their right mind would argue against micro evolution, i.e. the genetic drift inherent within a species. We've also proved new species can arise from selection. Most simply take issue with the ideas further down, i.e. speciation in the distant past. There's still some odd questions being worked on for how it all started, but there appears to be steady progress.
In the end, yes most creationist ideas are bunk and based off of faulty information. That isn't to say that all creationists are crazy people, just that there are problems that neither side knows the answer to. At least, according to our scientific method, but then again, who tests the scientific method?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are several people who do real science in the field who like the idea of creation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ever find one that wasn't a Christian? Those people are doing the science backwards. They start with their belief and manipulate the data to try and fit it. That isn't what I'd call "real science".
Not to completely derail the topic, but one of my favorite, and in my opinion the best, sources on the straight facts behind the progression of big-bang to humans is the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB" target="_blank">made easy series</a>. Definately worth your time.
Please note that this series is not very friendly to creationist views... They are taken in a somewhat hostile manner, but I think you'll find that it doesn't impart a bias simply due to the very well done presentation.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1691244:date=Oct 24 2008, 12:02 AM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Oct 24 2008, 12:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691244"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ever find one that wasn't a Christian? Those people are doing the science backwards. They start with their belief and manipulate the data to try and fit it. That isn't what I'd call "real science".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This pretty much sums up my entire attitude towards ID, creationism and "creationist science" in general.
Real science involves looking at the facts, and forming a theory based on that. Creationism in all forms involves forming a theory, then looking for facts to fit that theory.
I am actually pretty active in the whole evolution/creationism thing online (under a variety of different names because I severely doubt that any of you would take what "X_Stickman" says seriously), and I can honestly say that I've never seen any compelling evidence *for* creationism. The best stuff they can muster is criticisms *against* evolution, pretty much all of which have been debunked in the past anyway. Irreducible complexity, anyone? How often have you heard that. Darwin himself smashed that one.
<!--quoteo(post=1691273:date=Oct 24 2008, 05:35 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Oct 24 2008, 05:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691273"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am actually pretty active in the whole evolution/creationism thing online (under a variety of different names because I severely doubt that any of you would take what "X_Stickman" says seriously), and I can honestly say that I've never seen any compelling evidence *for* creationism.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point.
I tend to just be a creationist just to make sure my evolution friends actually fix those stupid bugs. Makes for a good conversation piece. Almost never converts of course when I give away the answers to the false problems.
Anyways, something interesting people should read: <a href="http://listverse.com/science/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/" target="_blank">http://listverse.com/science/top-15-miscon...bout-evolution/</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1691077:date=Oct 22 2008, 11:10 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 22 2008, 11:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691077"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The justification is that Bill Gates has money to give, and it wouldn't effect his quality of life. You can't get blood from a stone so taxing the poor/middleclass is A.) unpopular B.) fruitless C.) damaging for a large population. The money has to come from somewhere. You can't just keep racking up debt and expect it not to matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 2 dollars out of 10 is the same percentage as 20,000 from 100,000. I don't think it's exactly fair to exclude the poor from taxes. What the poor doesn't pay, everyone else pays more to make up for. If I decide I want to be charitable, I might give 20 dollars to that poor man, but let me decide how to use my own money. The money that a poor man owes to the government is like right to be in this country, and I don't think 20% is much to ask if 2 dollars means having the right to live in a free nation. Since when has loathing taken the place of patriotism in this country? There used to be a time in which you bought war bonds to support the war and when paying taxes was a priviledge for what it meant. Now it's considered a crime to apply the same tax laws there have always been to the poor. Because they're poor, they somehow should get a break. I think it's a matter of perspective. Rather than shake your angry fist at the government for being there and serving the people and blaming them for the poor being poor, I think it should be one of the few expenditures you wouldn't hesitate to pay if you had any loyalty to this country. If you take a look at the cost of living in some countries and the rate of taxes they pay, it makes the United States look like a bunch of whiners in comparison. If you want charities for poor people, the government already provides a service which allows you to deduct from your taxes any amount you donate to charity. So donate to charity. Your government will even make it worth your while.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Creationism is <u>not</u> a scientific theory. It's a fine <u>belief</u>, but science involves a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven. A statement that God did something, and any evidence that points to the contrary is the work of the devil, is not scientific.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I perfectly understand that creationism is not a scientific theory. However, the idea that dinosaurs and humans walked on the planet at the same time <u>is</u> a scientific theory "that can be proven or disproven." The point is not whether or not it is scientific theory but the fact that it is one of the theories which support creationism. And you won't see many scientists supportive of darwinism try to prove a theory which contradicts it. It's not accepted scientific theory, which in other words means that those searching to prove or disprove the fact that dinosaurs and humans walked the planet at the same time are considered idiots until proven otherwise by the general scientific community.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Before you cry "killing the messenger", think about what I said above and that science is a thought process not a experiment. An experiment can be interpreted many different ways, but when using the scientific process only certain conclusions can be draw from an experiment. A creationist is not a person who uses the scientific process, at least when it comes to that particular subject. A scientist can have faith and still be a scientist, but there is no such thing as a "Creationist Scientist"(meaning the title, not a general description, as differentiated in the previous sentence) because a creationist, by definition, is not using the scientific method.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not arguing whether or not God exists or whether or not creationism is true, yet I think I demonstrated that holding certain beliefs which can be proven or disproven should not be automatically thrown out the window because it is attached to some religious belief. A true scientist will search for the truth in any shape or form by empirical evidence, despite what beliefs that scientist will hold. And if most scientists deem this theory too 'silly' to investigate, then I suppose you could say it makes those trying to prove or disprove this theory more 'scientific' than those who already have a preset belief.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually scientists think dinosaurs weren't alive during the time of humans because of the fossil and geologic record. We see the evolution of humans occurring millions of years after the disappearance of dinosaurs and how the climate of the Earth changed. The atmosphere used to be more <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863021,00.html" target="_blank">oxygen rich</a>, and dinosaurs would have a hard time breathing in the modern(read millions of years) atmosphere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1.) Proving that there existed dinosaurs before humans is not proof that they didn't also coexist. 2.) Claiming that dinosaurs would have a hard time breathing in the modern atmosphere implies that the burden of proof is on you. 3.) Tracks have already been found with both dinosaur and human prints around the same time. Now if you want to refute this, you'll either have to prove to me that one footprint or the other isn't what we suspect them to be or you'll have to prove that the instruments used were inaccurate. Again, burden of proof is on you at this point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The concept of dinosaurs existing is crazy, but also true like many other crazy animals on this planet. Therefore, because the concept of humans inhabiting the Earth the same time as dinosaurs is crazy, it must also be true.
Common logical fallacy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not true because it's crazy. It's true because we've found empirical evidence to support that theory. You'd be surprised how often new evidence which contradicts prior mainstream scientific theory are discarded like it is automatically invalid because it doesn't fall into the norm or because it doesn't fit into preconceived theories.
<!--quoteo(post=1691104:date=Oct 22 2008, 04:53 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 22 2008, 04:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691104"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Second of all, when creationists do propose something that is genuinely scientifically testable and has not already shown to be false, it will get properly tested. This does not happen often.
After all, why are "creation scientists" spending so much time ineffectually trying to prove evolution wrong rather than doing proper scientific research themselves and submitting it to a proper, respected journal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> See above. The evidence hasn't been found yesterday. The fact is that most scientists quickly disregard it because it doesn't fit into mainstream archaelogical theory. I invite the scientific community to genuinely test this theory, not simply to disprove it but to prove it as well.
MonkfishSonic-boom-inducing buttcheeks of terrifying speed!Join Date: 2003-06-03Member: 16972Members
edited October 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1691284:date=Oct 24 2008, 09:37 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 24 2008, 09:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691284"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, the idea that dinosaurs and humans walked on the planet at the same time <u>is</u> a scientific theory "that can be proven or disproven."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never thought stupid words on the internet could cause me physical pain. I was wrong.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
edited October 2008
spellman: Can you identify a single creationist claim that is genuinely backed up by solid, scientific proof? I don't think that creationists are some sort of weird "cult", but I do think they've never managed to come up with anything of merit that could withstand decent scientific scrutiny.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->See above. The evidence hasn't been found yesterday. The fact is that most scientists quickly disregard it because it doesn't fit into mainstream archaelogical theory. I invite the scientific community to genuinely test this theory, not simply to disprove it but to prove it as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm afraid your invitation <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html" target="_blank">has been thoroughly superseded</a>, and these "claims" of human and dinosaur tracks at Paluxy have already been debunked. So thoroughly, in fact, that even Answers in Genesis say that <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">it is not a valid argument for creationism</a>.
Your insistence that scientists are automatically disregarding creationist ideas because "it doesn't fall into the norm" is coming dangerously close to conspiracy theory reminiscent of "Expelled". It is true that many creationist proposals are dismissed out of hand, but that is because they are so obviously complete twaddle, much of which <i>it isn't even possible to test scientifically</i>. When something is proposed that it is possible to critically and scientifically examine, then scientists look into it. The fact that they are demonstrated to be false does not, however, mean that they are discarding things for not fitting into their "world-view", that's more of a creationist game. What it's down to is a lack of evidence, or evidence that does not stand up to scrutiny.
I mean, which do you think is more parsimonious? That the entirety of "mainstream science" are deliberately supressing and discarding theories that would over turn hundreds of years of archaeology, palaeontology, anthropology and biology, or that those theories were simply wrong?
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1691284:date=Oct 24 2008, 10:37 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 24 2008, 10:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691284"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3.) Tracks have already been found with both dinosaur and human prints around the same time. Now if you want to refute this, you'll either have to prove to me that one footprint or the other isn't what we suspect them to be or you'll have to prove that the instruments used were inaccurate. Again, burden of proof is on you at this point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. They haven't. They're all either fakes, or hoaxes. Here are some refutations to the site you had in your first post (<a href="http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm" target="_blank">this one</a>):
The <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html" target="_blank">"Taylor Trail"</a>. Not human footprints. A <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html" target="_blank">more general one</a> And <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html" target="_blank">again</a> Yup, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/sor-ipub.html" target="_blank">some more</a> Ok <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/retrack.html" target="_blank">one more</a>
Like I said, there's no evidence for creationism. At all. Everything they have is either a criticism of evolution (which in itself is not proof of anything else, and as I mentioned before, is either flat out wrong, or completely outdated) or the result of some shoddy science. These dinosaur / human footprint trails are a bit of both. Someone saw some shapes they thought looked like human footprints near some dinosaur footprints, and spread the word. Then some actual scientists checked it and found that, no, they're not. But the people who made the original claim just ignore that part.
Before this entire thread gets off topic, I'm gonna tie this in with the actual topic itself.
I'm standing by my claim that creationism in general is unscientific, because, well... it is. But Palin isn't just a creationist; she's a young-earth creationist, which for those who don't follow the whole thing, means that she believes the earth (and by extension, the universe) is only 6-10,000 years old. That goes against literally every single branch of science out there, from geology to astronomy, and there is literally no excuse to believe in that stuff nowadays, unless you are blinded by faith and reject actual evidence. She also appears to believe that the rapture is imminent, which is a terrifying frame of mind for someone who could potentially run one of the most powerful nations on the planet.
As I said before, anyone who bases their beliefs, actions and judgements on faith, rather than the actual evidence, is not someone I'd want in charge of a burger king, not to mention the USA.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1691297:date=Oct 24 2008, 12:19 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Oct 24 2008, 12:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691297"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As I said before, anyone who bases their beliefs, actions and judgements on faith, rather than the actual evidence, is not someone I'd want in charge of a burger king, not to mention the USA.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. The kind of people that believe the End Times are near are not the kind of people you want in a position of responsibility to ensure that a decent society is preserved for future generations.
Well, it's not exactly impossible to live by faith and still make rational decisions based on what you see around you. There was that story some Cardinal or something told on the West Wing one time. Also, the only episode I've ever seen, I swear. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
A guy's town gets evacuated prior to a flood, but he says, "God will save me." When the water rises and flees to the second story of his house, a Red Cross boat comes to get him, but he says, "God will save me." When it rises higher and he flees to the roof, a Coast Guard helicopter comes to get him, but he waves it off and yells, "God will save me." The water rises even higher, and the man is swept away. When he gets to heaven, the man asked God, "Why didn't You save me?" God replied, "I sent you a warning, a boat, and a helicopter. Why didn't you let yourself be saved?"
The point, of course, is that you shouldn't expect anyone, especially not God, to carry you completely. We have brains for a reason, and we should use them as effectively as possible. That doesn't preclude the application of faith to fill the voids in between, though. Regardless of what you or I think of Mrs. Palin, or what she in fact is, you can't write off everyone who is remotely religious as a nutjob who thinks the bible will stop a high powered rifle bullet.
This is just a small aside, but I really dislike that taxing the upper tenth percentile higher gets cast as "taking."
In any group of people, there are those who are strong, and those who are weak. And when we are talking economy, that means there are those who are rich, and those who are poor. And whenever somebody is stronger than others, they have to make a choice: Do I use my strength to oppress and exploit, or do I use it to help?
Most would say that the strong should help the weak become stronger. That is why the richer get taxed higher, because they have wealth in excess. Even after having to hand over a bigger share than the less wealthy, they still have wealth in excess. They can give others a hand and still have two hands for themselves.
No man is an island. Anyone who finds themselves in a position of wealth or power has come to that position not only by their own merits, but also with the help of others. To not in turn help those who need it is selfish, and such a man does not deserve station in a modern, peaceful, cooperative society.
Thus, taxing is not taking. It's making sure you pay what you owe. And those who have the most owe the most.
<!--quoteo(post=1691311:date=Oct 24 2008, 07:32 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 24 2008, 07:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691311"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is just a small aside, but I really dislike that taxing the upper tenth percentile higher gets cast as "taking."
In any group of people, there are those who are strong, and those who are weak. And when we are talking economy, that means there are those who are rich, and those who are poor. And whenever somebody is stronger than others, they have to make a choice: Do I use my strength to oppress and exploit, or do I use it to help?
Most would say that the strong should help the weak become stronger. That is why the richer get taxed higher, because they have wealth in excess. Even after having to hand over a bigger share than the less wealthy, they still have wealth in excess. They can give others a hand and still have two hands for themselves.
No man is an island. Anyone who finds themselves in a position of wealth or power has come to that position not only by their own merits, but also with the help of others. To not in turn help those who need it is selfish, and such a man does not deserve station in a modern, peaceful, cooperative society.
Thus, taxing is not taking. It's making sure you pay what you owe. And those who have the most owe the most.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The other way to look at taxes is like incentives; if you tax something, people are less likely to strive towards it, all other things being equal. When higher income brackets are taxed at a higher rate, people have less incentive to earn that higher income. They might evade the tax code by getting their income reported some other way, move to a country where it's not taxed, or simply be less ambitious. Obviously it's not going to stop people from trying to earn more money but, if you hold every other variable equal, a higher tax on the rich makes it less rewarding to be rich.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited October 2008
This just in: <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/sarah_palin_ignorant_and_antis.php" target="_blank">Palin mocks fruit fly research despite it being the basis of much of our modern knowledge of genetics, and responsible for a Nobel Prize.</a> This is more enraging to me than anything else in the broad spectrum of outrages that have come out of the McCain campaign. Basic science research is the most noble thing that humans do, and to denigrate it without so much as a Google search, while still claiming to be qualified to be president . . . I don't have any strong enough language to condemn her without wishing her bodily harm.
What is currently terrifying to me, is that given a choice between voting for Bush and voting for Palin, I would vote for Bush.
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=1691381:date=Oct 25 2008, 03:57 AM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Oct 25 2008, 03:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691381"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What is currently terrifying to me, is that given a choice between voting for Bush and voting for Palin, I would vote for Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...yeah. Me too. :/
Good thing we have Obama to vote for instead!
I don't remember if this was mentioned in this thread, but some mccain supporter got mugged and got a B carved into her cheek. Some people thought the story sounded a bit fishy, and they were right to think so. Turns out the whole thing was made up. <a href="http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html" target="_blank">http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html</a>
It's like watching a train wreck that just won't stop. More and more wagons just piling up, the line of unspent but doomed vehicles stretching majestically beyond the horizon, their momentum never diminishing until that fateful impact, every instant bringing new, fascinating horrors, impossible to tear your gaze away from.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
<!--quoteo(post=1691387:date=Oct 25 2008, 01:13 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 25 2008, 01:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691387"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's like watching a train wreck that just won't stop. More and more wagons just piling up, the line of unspent but doomed vehicles stretching majestically beyond the horizon, their momentum never diminishing until that fateful impact, every instant bringing new, fascinating horrors, impossible to tear your gaze away from.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1691381:date=Oct 25 2008, 03:57 AM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Oct 25 2008, 03:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691381"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This just in: <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/sarah_palin_ignorant_and_antis.php" target="_blank">Palin mocks fruit fly research despite it being the basis of much of our modern knowledge of genetics, and responsible for a Nobel Prize.</a> This is more enraging to me than anything else in the broad spectrum of outrages that have come out of the McCain campaign. Basic science research is the most noble thing that humans do, and to denigrate it without so much as a Google search, while still claiming to be qualified to be president . . . I don't have any strong enough language to condemn her without wishing her bodily harm.
What is currently terrifying to me, is that given a choice between voting for Bush and voting for Palin, I would vote for Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> it is also sad and frightening that McCain can still win and that probably darn near 50% of the US think Palin is spouting words of wisdom in speeches like this.
People like <a href="http://www.hockeyzombie.com/comic/2008/10/19/" target="_blank">this</a>. (bad non-pc language included)
<!--quoteo(post=1691244:date=Oct 23 2008, 06:02 PM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Oct 23 2008, 06:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691244"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ever find one that wasn't a Christian? Those people are doing the science backwards. They start with their belief and manipulate the data to try and fit it. That isn't what I'd call "real science".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There are probably many serious scientists who do like the idea of creation... but still keep it separate from any practice of science. The problem with creationism as a scientific practice, is that it encourages non scientific method. Basically, if I discover something that I don't understand, I just assume it's an anomaly of creation, and don't bother to create theories and run tests to actually understand the mystery better. Fundamentally, it's bad for science to ever assume that something just is the way it is because that's how it was created. Even if we fundamentally believe in creation, we can't still assume that, just because a problem seems puzzling, it's a brick wall that can't be explained aside from just "Creation did it!"
Real scientists, even real christian scientists, don't practice creationism, weather or not they personally do believe in creation. Which many of them quite likely do.
<!--quoteo(post=1691315:date=Oct 24 2008, 09:17 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 24 2008, 09:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691315"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We have a saying in Denmark, I think it's from a song:
<i>Da har i rigdom du drevet det vidt: Når få har for meget, og færre for lidt</i>
Thus have in wealth you made it far: When few have too much and fewer too little<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have a saying in Texas, I'm sure it's in Denmark, too. Fool me once...
Sorry, just couldn't help myself. I will completely understand if this gets deleted.
Comments
Also, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s" target="_blank">Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary</a>.
Also, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s" target="_blank">Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that's actually the heart of one of my arguments. It's hard to tax the rich, because they're rich for a reason: they know how to work the system, and they'll find the path of least resistance. Trickle down might not work wonders, but neither does forcing the top earners to fork over more in taxes. Either they'll find a way not to fork it over, or you kill incentive to make that much money, or some combination there of. It's like cracker's vs copy right protection: it just hurt the end user. At least if you don't make up all these convoluted laws to try and tax the rich, I will be able to do my own taxes without my head exploding. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
One thing you'll note in that video though is that Warren buffet doesn't do anything complicated to avoid taxes, no tax shelters, or complicated accounting. He still ends up paying only 17%.
Thanks for that article. It was interesting. You can only carry the analogy so far, but it was a good read.
Have a look at <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=" target="_blank">some evidence to back it up.</a>
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't intend that article to be conclusive, however nor do I think that it's particularly trying to "cover" for him. It is nevertheless an interesting point that socialists are on record saying Obama is not one of them.
<!--quoteo(post=1691071:date=Oct 22 2008, 03:29 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 22 2008, 03:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not currently accepted theory by the scientific world. Though that's how it has always been before a major scientific discovery. Take ghosts for instance. Most of the scientific community completely denies its existence despite overwhelming evidence to suggest there might be something to that effect. Not to say that ghosts necessarily exist. It's perfectly reasonable to think they don't. However, had it been the question of whether or not a certain species of insect existed, you'd easily see a hundred times the number of scientists investigating and searching for evidence to support the fact that they exist or not.
There's just too much evidence to simply not investigate if you were a good scientist. If not ghosts, some other phenomenon, scientific or otherwise could be uncovered from such evidence. How many scientists do you see tackling the issue with scientific method? There is substantial evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted to an extent. They've uncovered a good many smooth stones from rivers in central america with markings of various species of dinosaurs which are atomically correct. Footprints have been found which have both been dated to be around the same time period. <a href="http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm" target="_blank">Evidence</a>. <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2704" target="_blank">More evidence</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no scientific validity to creationist claims. They have been refuted again and again by a whole range of extremely qualified scientists. You claim that the problem is that, as with "ghosts", there has been no proper scientific investigation into the matter for it to be dismissed. Which is simply not the case, particularly with creationist claims.
First of all, it is in many cases, not at all necessary to investigate these claims, simply because there already exists an incredibly large quantity of existing research, with vast amounts of supporting evidence, that already show creationist claims to have no scientific basis in reality.
Second of all, when creationists do propose something that is genuinely scientifically testable and has not already shown to be false, it will get properly tested. This does not happen often.
After all, why are "creation scientists" spending so much time ineffectually trying to prove evolution wrong rather than doing proper scientific research themselves and submitting it to a proper, respected journal?
It's not just as simple as loopholes and tax shelters. Warren Buffet is smart enough to calculate his own flat tax rate, would you agree? Since he cares about such things, he's got incentive to lower that tax rate as much as he can. In fact, that's probably a big reason why he is rich to begin with. He watches every penny, and he doesn't let go of money he doesn't have to. So he buys in gross, probably from places that have lower tax rates. He shops around, he avoids high luxury taxes, and he doesn't buy stuff frivolously. The same may not be able to be said about his secretary. Of course, she may have kids to buy food for and all that. Responsibilities of a parent are unavoidable.
But still you can see that the really wealthy people are always going to be wealthy, because that's their goal in life. It seems like my goal in life is argue foolishly on a forum while trying uselessly to engineer software, but Warren Buffet - he's a man with a plan.
[edit]
As far as your video, if we take it as canon, then there are some irregularities somewhere, as my link seems to run contrary to yours. Maybe it's just the way it's presented. Warren Buffet is hugely rich, but maybe his secretaries are paid very well in comparison to, say, me. I'm probably closer to lower-middle than middle-middle class.
Also, you can be sure that Warren Buffet still pays quite a bit more in gross money to the tax system than probably his whole office staff combined. Whether or not that's fair is still up to debate.
<!--quoteo(post=1691095:date=Oct 22 2008, 02:24 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 22 2008, 02:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691095"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm far too exhausted to read all of these essays, but from my light skimming it seems like tax brackets / percentages were brought up frequently. That topic reminds me of <a href="http://www.wisebread.com/bar-stool-economics-0" target="_blank">bar stool economics</a>, written by an Econ professor at Georgia. While not 100% accurate, it does raise some interesting points.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1691096:date=Oct 22 2008, 03:09 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 22 2008, 03:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691096"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thanks for that article. It was interesting. You can only carry the analogy so far, but it was a good read.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's very simplified, but that's what an abstraction is. It manages to capture the core issues and the battle lines of the tax debate. The rich get more money from tax cuts, but a (usually) smaller percentage. Numerically, percentages are fair. Intuitively, gross savings is fair. It's really hard to come to a consensus on this kind of topic. It's like my Dad's construction company: he never co-owned with anyone, because how do you divide up the profits? You have to take into account who owns which pieces of equipment, who brought that equipment to the job site, who got the contract to begin with, who kept the customer happy, etc. It's much more complicated than who put in what hours, and eventually, you have to make some simplifying assumptions, just like in any science.
There is no scientific validity to creationist claims. They have been refuted again and again by a whole range of extremely qualified scientists. You claim that the problem is that, as with "ghosts", there has been no proper scientific investigation into the matter for it to be dismissed. Which is simply not the case, particularly with creationist claims.
First of all, it is in many cases, not at all necessary to investigate these claims, simply because there already exists an incredibly large quantity of existing research, with vast amounts of supporting evidence, that already show creationist claims to have no scientific basis in reality.
Second of all, when creationists do propose something that is genuinely scientifically testable and has not already shown to be false, it will get properly tested. This does not happen often.
After all, why are "creation scientists" spending so much time ineffectually trying to prove evolution wrong rather than doing proper scientific research themselves and submitting it to a proper, respected journal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a Christian, I think Creation Scientists need to STFU, as well as folks who want creation taught in schools.
IF YOU CAN'T PROVE ######, WE DON'T TEACH IT
Some would claim that there's a giant conspiracy against creationist ideas, so any paper submitted would get rejected outright unless the paper was perfect. Then again, what paper is perfect nowadays except in special ideal circumstances and with such and such margin of error?
However, perhaps you're not giving either side enough credit. On one hand, creationists are not quacks. There are several people who do real science in the field who like the idea of creation. Not saying they're right, but don't try ti disregard creationists are nutjobs idiots who just spend their time trying to debunk something as a past time because they don't know any better. Plus, there are real problems that are being worked on. On the other hand, the scientific community has time and time again been able to disprove or explain a variety of "problems" brought up. Many of the "problems" come from a misguided understanding of science. So, often if someone comes out as a creationist, it throws up a giant red flag. Basically, things with creationist ideas are checked over pretty quickly since the majority are bogus. However, every scientist worth their salt is willing to accept creationist ideas if there's solid proof behind them, so don't pass them off as a conspiring cult as much as the scientific community may seem at times.
Of course, in the end, neither side can prove anything. One might even argue both are right, they just differ on their perspective. For example, the evolutionist looks at the holes in the fossil record and says stuff hasn't been found yet or there was a burst of change. Creationist might say divine intervention. Or, genetic similarities to an evolutionist mean we all had the same genetic code in the past. Creationists merely says the creator built in similarities. Also, so what if evolution is real now, does that prove it happened in the past? Weird philosophical question, but legitimate.
However, no one in their right mind would argue against micro evolution, i.e. the genetic drift inherent within a species. We've also proved new species can arise from selection. Most simply take issue with the ideas further down, i.e. speciation in the distant past. There's still some odd questions being worked on for how it all started, but there appears to be steady progress.
In the end, yes most creationist ideas are bunk and based off of faulty information. That isn't to say that all creationists are crazy people, just that there are problems that neither side knows the answer to. At least, according to our scientific method, but then again, who tests the scientific method?
Ever find one that wasn't a Christian? Those people are doing the science backwards. They start with their belief and manipulate the data to try and fit it. That isn't what I'd call "real science".
Please note that this series is not very friendly to creationist views... They are taken in a somewhat hostile manner, but I think you'll find that it doesn't impart a bias simply due to the very well done presentation.
This pretty much sums up my entire attitude towards ID, creationism and "creationist science" in general.
Real science involves looking at the facts, and forming a theory based on that. Creationism in all forms involves forming a theory, then looking for facts to fit that theory.
I am actually pretty active in the whole evolution/creationism thing online (under a variety of different names because I severely doubt that any of you would take what "X_Stickman" says seriously), and I can honestly say that I've never seen any compelling evidence *for* creationism. The best stuff they can muster is criticisms *against* evolution, pretty much all of which have been debunked in the past anyway. Irreducible complexity, anyone? How often have you heard that. Darwin himself smashed that one.
Good point.
I tend to just be a creationist just to make sure my evolution friends actually fix those stupid bugs. Makes for a good conversation piece. Almost never converts of course when I give away the answers to the false problems.
Anyways, something interesting people should read:
<a href="http://listverse.com/science/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/" target="_blank">http://listverse.com/science/top-15-miscon...bout-evolution/</a>
2 dollars out of 10 is the same percentage as 20,000 from 100,000. I don't think it's exactly fair to exclude the poor from taxes. What the poor doesn't pay, everyone else pays more to make up for. If I decide I want to be charitable, I might give 20 dollars to that poor man, but let me decide how to use my own money. The money that a poor man owes to the government is like right to be in this country, and I don't think 20% is much to ask if 2 dollars means having the right to live in a free nation. Since when has loathing taken the place of patriotism in this country? There used to be a time in which you bought war bonds to support the war and when paying taxes was a priviledge for what it meant. Now it's considered a crime to apply the same tax laws there have always been to the poor. Because they're poor, they somehow should get a break. I think it's a matter of perspective. Rather than shake your angry fist at the government for being there and serving the people and blaming them for the poor being poor, I think it should be one of the few expenditures you wouldn't hesitate to pay if you had any loyalty to this country. If you take a look at the cost of living in some countries and the rate of taxes they pay, it makes the United States look like a bunch of whiners in comparison. If you want charities for poor people, the government already provides a service which allows you to deduct from your taxes any amount you donate to charity. So donate to charity. Your government will even make it worth your while.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Creationism is <u>not</u> a scientific theory. It's a fine <u>belief</u>, but science involves a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven. A statement that God did something, and any evidence that points to the contrary is the work of the devil, is not scientific.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I perfectly understand that creationism is not a scientific theory. However, the idea that dinosaurs and humans walked on the planet at the same time <u>is</u> a scientific theory "that can be proven or disproven." The point is not whether or not it is scientific theory but the fact that it is one of the theories which support creationism. And you won't see many scientists supportive of darwinism try to prove a theory which contradicts it. It's not accepted scientific theory, which in other words means that those searching to prove or disprove the fact that dinosaurs and humans walked the planet at the same time are considered idiots until proven otherwise by the general scientific community.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Before you cry "killing the messenger", think about what I said above and that science is a thought process not a experiment. An experiment can be interpreted many different ways, but when using the scientific process only certain conclusions can be draw from an experiment. A creationist is not a person who uses the scientific process, at least when it comes to that particular subject. A scientist can have faith and still be a scientist, but there is no such thing as a "Creationist Scientist"(meaning the title, not a general description, as differentiated in the previous sentence) because a creationist, by definition, is not using the scientific method.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not arguing whether or not God exists or whether or not creationism is true, yet I think I demonstrated that holding certain beliefs which can be proven or disproven should not be automatically thrown out the window because it is attached to some religious belief. A true scientist will search for the truth in any shape or form by empirical evidence, despite what beliefs that scientist will hold. And if most scientists deem this theory too 'silly' to investigate, then I suppose you could say it makes those trying to prove or disprove this theory more 'scientific' than those who already have a preset belief.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually scientists think dinosaurs weren't alive during the time of humans because of the fossil and geologic record. We see the evolution of humans occurring millions of years after the disappearance of dinosaurs and how the climate of the Earth changed. The atmosphere used to be more <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863021,00.html" target="_blank">oxygen rich</a>, and dinosaurs would have a hard time breathing in the modern(read millions of years) atmosphere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1.) Proving that there existed dinosaurs before humans is not proof that they didn't also coexist.
2.) Claiming that dinosaurs would have a hard time breathing in the modern atmosphere implies that the burden of proof is on you.
3.) Tracks have already been found with both dinosaur and human prints around the same time. Now if you want to refute this, you'll either have to prove to me that one footprint or the other isn't what we suspect them to be or you'll have to prove that the instruments used were inaccurate. Again, burden of proof is on you at this point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The concept of dinosaurs existing is crazy, but also true like many other crazy animals on this planet. Therefore, because the concept of humans inhabiting the Earth the same time as dinosaurs is crazy, it must also be true.
Common logical fallacy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not true because it's crazy. It's true because we've found empirical evidence to support that theory. You'd be surprised how often new evidence which contradicts prior mainstream scientific theory are discarded like it is automatically invalid because it doesn't fall into the norm or because it doesn't fit into preconceived theories.
<!--quoteo(post=1691104:date=Oct 22 2008, 04:53 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Oct 22 2008, 04:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691104"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Second of all, when creationists do propose something that is genuinely scientifically testable and has not already shown to be false, it will get properly tested. This does not happen often.
After all, why are "creation scientists" spending so much time ineffectually trying to prove evolution wrong rather than doing proper scientific research themselves and submitting it to a proper, respected journal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above. The evidence hasn't been found yesterday. The fact is that most scientists quickly disregard it because it doesn't fit into mainstream archaelogical theory. I invite the scientific community to genuinely test this theory, not simply to disprove it but to prove it as well.
I never thought stupid words on the internet could cause me physical pain. I was wrong.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->See above. The evidence hasn't been found yesterday. The fact is that most scientists quickly disregard it because it doesn't fit into mainstream archaelogical theory. I invite the scientific community to genuinely test this theory, not simply to disprove it but to prove it as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm afraid your invitation <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html" target="_blank">has been thoroughly superseded</a>, and these "claims" of human and dinosaur tracks at Paluxy have already been debunked. So thoroughly, in fact, that even Answers in Genesis say that <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">it is not a valid argument for creationism</a>.
Your insistence that scientists are automatically disregarding creationist ideas because "it doesn't fall into the norm" is coming dangerously close to conspiracy theory reminiscent of "Expelled". It is true that many creationist proposals are dismissed out of hand, but that is because they are so obviously complete twaddle, much of which <i>it isn't even possible to test scientifically</i>. When something is proposed that it is possible to critically and scientifically examine, then scientists look into it. The fact that they are demonstrated to be false does not, however, mean that they are discarding things for not fitting into their "world-view", that's more of a creationist game. What it's down to is a lack of evidence, or evidence that does not stand up to scrutiny.
I mean, which do you think is more parsimonious? That the entirety of "mainstream science" are deliberately supressing and discarding theories that would over turn hundreds of years of archaeology, palaeontology, anthropology and biology, or that those theories were simply wrong?
No. They haven't. They're all either fakes, or hoaxes. Here are some refutations to the site you had in your first post (<a href="http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm" target="_blank">this one</a>):
The <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html" target="_blank">"Taylor Trail"</a>. Not human footprints.
A <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html" target="_blank">more general one</a>
And <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html" target="_blank">again</a>
Yup, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/sor-ipub.html" target="_blank">some more</a>
Ok <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/retrack.html" target="_blank">one more</a>
Like I said, there's no evidence for creationism. At all. Everything they have is either a criticism of evolution (which in itself is not proof of anything else, and as I mentioned before, is either flat out wrong, or completely outdated) or the result of some shoddy science. These dinosaur / human footprint trails are a bit of both. Someone saw some shapes they thought looked like human footprints near some dinosaur footprints, and spread the word. Then some actual scientists checked it and found that, no, they're not. But the people who made the original claim just ignore that part.
Before this entire thread gets off topic, I'm gonna tie this in with the actual topic itself.
I'm standing by my claim that creationism in general is unscientific, because, well... it is. But Palin isn't just a creationist; she's a young-earth creationist, which for those who don't follow the whole thing, means that she believes the earth (and by extension, the universe) is only 6-10,000 years old. That goes against literally every single branch of science out there, from geology to astronomy, and there is literally no excuse to believe in that stuff nowadays, unless you are blinded by faith and reject actual evidence. She also appears to believe that the rapture is imminent, which is a terrifying frame of mind for someone who could potentially run one of the most powerful nations on the planet.
As I said before, anyone who bases their beliefs, actions and judgements on faith, rather than the actual evidence, is not someone I'd want in charge of a burger king, not to mention the USA.
Yeah. The kind of people that believe the End Times are near are not the kind of people you want in a position of responsibility to ensure that a decent society is preserved for future generations.
A guy's town gets evacuated prior to a flood, but he says, "God will save me." When the water rises and flees to the second story of his house, a Red Cross boat comes to get him, but he says, "God will save me." When it rises higher and he flees to the roof, a Coast Guard helicopter comes to get him, but he waves it off and yells, "God will save me." The water rises even higher, and the man is swept away. When he gets to heaven, the man asked God, "Why didn't You save me?" God replied, "I sent you a warning, a boat, and a helicopter. Why didn't you let yourself be saved?"
The point, of course, is that you shouldn't expect anyone, especially not God, to carry you completely. We have brains for a reason, and we should use them as effectively as possible. That doesn't preclude the application of faith to fill the voids in between, though. Regardless of what you or I think of Mrs. Palin, or what she in fact is, you can't write off everyone who is remotely religious as a nutjob who thinks the bible will stop a high powered rifle bullet.
In any group of people, there are those who are strong, and those who are weak. And when we are talking economy, that means there are those who are rich, and those who are poor. And whenever somebody is stronger than others, they have to make a choice: Do I use my strength to oppress and exploit, or do I use it to help?
Most would say that the strong should help the weak become stronger. That is why the richer get taxed higher, because they have wealth in excess. Even after having to hand over a bigger share than the less wealthy, they still have wealth in excess. They can give others a hand and still have two hands for themselves.
No man is an island. Anyone who finds themselves in a position of wealth or power has come to that position not only by their own merits, but also with the help of others. To not in turn help those who need it is selfish, and such a man does not deserve station in a modern, peaceful, cooperative society.
Thus, taxing is not taking. It's making sure you pay what you owe. And those who have the most owe the most.
In any group of people, there are those who are strong, and those who are weak. And when we are talking economy, that means there are those who are rich, and those who are poor. And whenever somebody is stronger than others, they have to make a choice: Do I use my strength to oppress and exploit, or do I use it to help?
Most would say that the strong should help the weak become stronger. That is why the richer get taxed higher, because they have wealth in excess. Even after having to hand over a bigger share than the less wealthy, they still have wealth in excess. They can give others a hand and still have two hands for themselves.
No man is an island. Anyone who finds themselves in a position of wealth or power has come to that position not only by their own merits, but also with the help of others. To not in turn help those who need it is selfish, and such a man does not deserve station in a modern, peaceful, cooperative society.
Thus, taxing is not taking. It's making sure you pay what you owe. And those who have the most owe the most.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The other way to look at taxes is like incentives; if you tax something, people are less likely to strive towards it, all other things being equal. When higher income brackets are taxed at a higher rate, people have less incentive to earn that higher income. They might evade the tax code by getting their income reported some other way, move to a country where it's not taxed, or simply be less ambitious. Obviously it's not going to stop people from trying to earn more money but, if you hold every other variable equal, a higher tax on the rich makes it less rewarding to be rich.
<i>Da har i rigdom du drevet det vidt:
Når få har for meget, og færre for lidt</i>
Thus have in wealth you made it far:
When few have too much and fewer too little
What is currently terrifying to me, is that given a choice between voting for Bush and voting for Palin, I would vote for Bush.
...yeah. Me too. :/
Good thing we have Obama to vote for instead!
I don't remember if this was mentioned in this thread, but some mccain supporter got mugged and got a B carved into her cheek. Some people thought the story sounded a bit fishy, and they were right to think so. Turns out the whole thing was made up.
<a href="http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html" target="_blank">http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html</a>
Just like icecream!
What is currently terrifying to me, is that given a choice between voting for Bush and voting for Palin, I would vote for Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it is also sad and frightening that McCain can still win and that probably darn near 50% of the US think Palin is spouting words of wisdom in speeches like this.
People like <a href="http://www.hockeyzombie.com/comic/2008/10/19/" target="_blank">this</a>. (bad non-pc language included)
There are probably many serious scientists who do like the idea of creation... but still keep it separate from any practice of science. The problem with creationism as a scientific practice, is that it encourages non scientific method. Basically, if I discover something that I don't understand, I just assume it's an anomaly of creation, and don't bother to create theories and run tests to actually understand the mystery better. Fundamentally, it's bad for science to ever assume that something just is the way it is because that's how it was created. Even if we fundamentally believe in creation, we can't still assume that, just because a problem seems puzzling, it's a brick wall that can't be explained aside from just "Creation did it!"
Real scientists, even real christian scientists, don't practice creationism, weather or not they personally do believe in creation. Which many of them quite likely do.
<i>Da har i rigdom du drevet det vidt:
Når få har for meget, og færre for lidt</i>
Thus have in wealth you made it far:
When few have too much and fewer too little<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have a saying in Texas, I'm sure it's in Denmark, too. Fool me once...
Sorry, just couldn't help myself. I will completely understand if this gets deleted.