But the words of some long-forgotten guy who wrote down what had to be the ancient legends, myths, traditions, of the pre-scientific Hebrews herding their goats and sheep around the Middle East 3,000 years ago . . . how could he be wrong?
Genesis is great mythology, but it has nothing to do with history or science.
Let's put it like this, for you folk in Texas.
If you got cancer, would you look to Genesis for a cure?
And in the second or third chapter, the eldest son of Adam and Eve, Cain, killed his brother, Abel, 'cause he was afraid God liked Abel better.
God spoke to Cain, asking, "Where is your brother?"
Cain said, "What, am I my brother's keeper?"
God said, "Yes, you are."
If the Conservative Texas Christian Republicans really believed Genesis was true, they would have to accept that they are their brothers' keepers, then they would have to support Single Payer healthcare, higher minimum wage, whatever it takes to take care of their brothers and sisters who need a hand . . . but Conservatives are very picky and choosey about which of the "truths" of Genesis they want to believe.”
Despute having a degree in science (biology) he always refuted the arguments of evolution by saying "Well, God must have . . . ." done this, or that in the ancient past, which means he was just making up explanations to suit the conclusion.
Which is what Creationists do.
This is the question, or issue.
Genesis was written 3,000 years ago, more or less, and doubtless based on older legends, myths, and traditions, the origins of which are long since lost in antiquity.
Genesis was written 3,000 years before anybody heard of "science."
The idea of "science" would probably be incomprehensible to the man, or men, who wrote Genesis, their names and identities long since lost in the blowing sands of the Middle East.
The people then just took their legends, myths, and traditions, at face value, having no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.
In the last few hundred years we've developed a mind boggling supply of science and evidence, all of which tends to confirm that this earth has been around for some 4 billion years, and that life has been evolving for more than a billion years, and the human race for more than 3 million years.
So, do we accept the legitimacy of science, based on evidence, observation, research, experiment, mathematics?
Or do we reject science out of hand, and insist that the ancient legends, myths, and traditions, are true, because . . . . well, they're ancient.”
Now let's say you have faith that the sky is blue. And I have faith that the sky is red.
Since truth is known by faith, the sky must be both red and blue at the same time.
But it isn't.
Now let's say you have faith that God created everything in six days six thousand years ago.
And I have faith that everything evolved over 14 billion years.
Since we both have faith, both propositions must be true. But both propositions can't be true.
Therefore it seems self-evident that faith is not a proof of truth.
Since people of all religions believe in their religions by faith, then if faith is proof of truth, then all religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Voodun, and all the rest, but be equally true . . . they are proven true by the faith of their believers.
And if we are atheists by faith in the non-existence of God, then atheism is just as true as all the religions . . . my faith in atheism proves that God does not exist!
The proposition that truth is known by faith quickly descends into absurdity.”
“Few people want to say so, but science and religion are completely different animals, and, no, they are not compatible.
Science is based on belief in evidence, observations of facts that can be repeated any number of times by any number of observors, with little or no deviation.
Religion is based on belief in the words of long-forgotten people who lived and died thousands of years ago, telling stories about things that nobody since has seen or heard or experienced.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of religions, large and small, and they all believe different things to be "true," and none of them have any evidence other than "belief" and "faith" to prove the truth of their beliefs.
If "faith" and "belief" are proof of truth, then everything in which anyone has faith or belief is, ipso facto, true.
Thus all religions are equally true.
But . . . hey . . . doesn't every religion claim that it, and only it, is true?
And all the others are false?
And they know this by faith, and so they believe?”
That in America, the richest country on earth, the richest county in history, there are a million people living on the streets.
Without adequate food, clothing, shelter.
And in many places (such as Sacramento) the cops will run you off, cite you, sometimes arrest you, for panhandling food money.
Then sometimes homeless people get a little drugs to take the edge off the misery and get arrested for drugs and sent to jail, then when they get out they're still homeless.”
pete cole on Jun 5, 2014 at 17:42:29
“A wee bit more socialism may help but as I understand it that can be a dirty word to some Americans”
nasknit on Jun 5, 2014 at 14:04:28
“MOST homeless people are mentally ill, or have a drug/alcohol problem-The misery was there before they were homeless. AS to your condemnation of police "running off" panhandlers? When I worked downtown, every day, for years, the "Gauntlet" of those pan handling was daunting. In addition, most reputable drop in shelters, homeless shelters, free store/food banks, etc Discourage giving MONEY to the homeless, because it goes to drugs and alcohol, not food.”
“One problem is that some debt collection agencies will file fraudulent proofs of service . . . and that some process servers will give the agencies fraudulent proofs of service, and the agencies don't know the proofs are fraudulent . . . the process server just wants his service fee.
Then the agency gets a default judgment . . . long before the alleged debtor even knows the lawsuit has been filed.”
LeftRight on Jun 3, 2014 at 20:42:35
“EXACTLY!!! I've been talking to people on here and they keep coming back with "But they went to the court so it's all legal!" never mind that the debt collector broke the law!”
To what extent are people living today responsible for the sins of their ancestors, who died long before they, we, were born?
To what extent are YOU responsible for the sins of your parents?
Your great-great-great grandparents?
To what extent should you be compensated for injuries inflicted on your great-great-grandparents?
Who died long before you were born.
Again, I don't know.”
BigPictureReg on Jun 3, 2014 at 10:08:34
“You are asking questions that most clearly require quantities for responses.
The continued references to deceased people falsely suggests a 'statute of limitations' on responsibility. There has been no such limitation on the benefits derived, quite clearly, so, why should there be one on that which was lost?
These quantities are derived, with honest effort, from 150 years of recorded information, property values and transfers, wills, institutions of value built with slave labor, etc., all and more of which have histories that can be traced to current values of those physical entities that are the results of those historical elements and enterprises.
Rather than to continue to confuse the issue with circular references, denial and avoidance, employing simple forensics would create momentum that would do significantly more than has ever been attempted up to this point.”
returnofthejedi on Jun 3, 2014 at 09:38:26
“What ARE the sins of my Grandparents? Can you so vividly re-call them?”
I'm White. My ancestors immigrated here from Europe in the 1930s, almost a century after the abolition of slavery.
How much should I pay you in reparations?
Your ancestors came here in the 1890s, long after the abolition of slavery.
How much should you get in reparations?
I have no idea.”
Inkosi on Jun 3, 2014 at 11:41:52
“My ancestors arrived in 1730 to Philadelphia. They were Quakers - never owned slaves, were abolitionists, participated in the underground railroad. That does not exclude them from the debt owed to slaves All citizens paid for WWI and WW2 - even new immigrants arriving after the war paid taxes to cover the cost of the wars. So too, do all citizens/residents of the US owe this debt.”
pjcostello on Jun 3, 2014 at 11:36:50
“The answer to both is precisely zero.
That was easy!”
NikkiB on Jun 3, 2014 at 10:02:43
“Jim Crow was still around in the 1960's. The discrimination didn't end with slavery.”
Trying to calculate who should get how much as reparations for having ancestors who were slaves is mind-bogglingly difficult.
As in, How much should I pay you because my great-great-great-grandfather was mean to your great-great-great-grandfather?
So, how much do we pay John who traces all of his ancestry back to slaves? - as reparations?
How much do we pay Mary who traces half her ancestry back to slaves?
How much do we pay Peter who can trace his ancestry to one slave?
How much do we pay Paul who is Black, but cannot trace his ancestry to any slaves?
Should we pay the same reparations to a Black American who is now a neurosurgeon, who traces much of his ancestry to slaves, as to a Black American who is now disabled and homeless who can't trace any of his ancestry to slaves?
I don't have any answers.
But the complexities of trying to figure out who should get how much are intimidating.
Your great-grandfather stole my great-grandfather's horses.
How much do you owe me?
Trying to figure out how to assess, and compensate, people living now for the sins of their remote ancestors who were long dead before they were born is a puzzle way harder than Rubik's cube.”
Cars go a gazillion places that public transportation doesn't go.
To replace the car with public transportation, we'd have to build millions - literally - of miles of railroads, light rails, monorails, bus lines, "people movers" whatever they are, subways, and everything else.
We're balking at spending $2 trillion to do the upgrades our streets and highways and bridges need now.
To replace the automobile in big, sprawling America with public transportation that goes everywhere we'd be talking about spending maybe $200 trillion.
Then how do we haul our freight, food, building materials, all that stuff, on public transportation?”
“If, and when the US ever decides to get serious about cutting its CO2 emissions (probably a useless idea, but popular) it will quickly develop a strategy to build out 1,000 new nuclear power plants to generate the energy to replace all of our use of coal, oil, and natural gas, for electricity and transportation.
Since the idea of building 1,000 nuclear power plants will send most of the environmentalists (who are also afraid of CO2) into panic attacks, it probably won't happen before we run out of coal, oil, and natural gas.
And then, without nuclear, it's back to the stone age!
Yes, we will have solar power when the sun shines, and wind power when the wind blows.
But what happens when all the solar panels that power everything in half the country are covered with snow for five months in the winter?
Or the wind doesn't blow for a few days?
How many thousands of tons of batteries will it take to run a freight train?
A cruise ship?
A steel mill?
republic84 on Jun 2, 2014 at 08:56:53
“You really don't know much about wind or solar power do you? Solar panels wouldn't be covered permanently for the entire winter unless they were somewhere with an extreme winter. Wind turbines if tall enough catch the higher breezes we don't really feel on the ground. Wait until a calm day then find a high place like an observation deck on a tall building if your by a big city. We have windmills all over Cleveland (sometimes in the oddest places) and even on calm days they are spinning. There are also hydroelectric power plants, hydrofarms that they utilize water currents for energy generation.”
Soilguy on Jun 2, 2014 at 08:41:37
“Yes, yes, we have no other choice than to destroy the life support system we depend on. Anyone who challenges your list of ancient reasons we can never change is just a daft greenie. Our lives depend on ending the future of our species, and if someone doesn't like it, too bad.”
GreshamGuy on Jun 2, 2014 at 08:35:51
“We have the solar technology and it continues to be developed. You paint a very dire picture of the state of solar and wind, probably out of sheer ignorance. That's no crime, but touting a thousand nuclear power plants as the solution is simply foolish - we have no good solution for handling radioactive waste which has a half-life of tens of thousands of years, at best, and so far, we have been proven rather inept at keeping the existing plants safe.
Why the animus toward solar and wind? Why NOT use power which is essentially free and which does not pollute?”
JoeJoeDurango on Jun 2, 2014 at 08:29:32
“Nuclear fuel in its present political climate is not a recyclable fuel... And honestly Nuclear Plants are a bit old technology.. Too many short term and long term issues...
Another power plant design needs to evolve in the next 40 years.”
“What, exactly, will a 30% cut in power plant emissions accomplish?
The climate has been changing, warming, cooling, for hundreds of millions of years, most of which have been warmer than now.
And a 30% cut in American power plant emissions will reduce global CO2 emissions by how much . . . maybe 1%?
And CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
Carbon is the basis for all life on earth. Plants do not grow without CO2 in the atmosphere, and the more CO2, the faster they grow, the more food they yield.
If we could significantly lower atmospheric CO2 (I doubt we can, not within the lifetime of anyone now living) it would slow plant growth and reduce food production, while the global population keeps growing . . . i.e., less CO2 means more hunger, more starvation, "over there," in the poor countries, and higher food prices here in the rich countries.
Fortunately, a 30% cut in power plant emissions in the US will not reverse the trend of rising atmospheric CO2 - and it will slow the increase in CO2 very slightly, probably not enough to be measurable over the next 50 years.
And a 30% cut on power plant emissions in the US will not have a detectable effect on climate change, which is natural, and normal, and has been happening for a long, long time before us.”
curmugin on Jun 2, 2014 at 09:00:28
“Amazingly, although your figures and facts are mostly wrong, your conclusion , that cutting power plant emissions 30% will not have a detectable effect at this point, is correct. Sad but true. Still the tour-de-force of erroneous information in one post is impressive.”
Soilguy on Jun 2, 2014 at 08:48:07
“Your comment is stuffed with just about every piece of "denialist/we can't do anything anyway/CO2 is plant food" nonsense that has been pulled from the nether regions of The Heartland Institute since they were hired to write climate propaganda.
So here we have:
1. Climate has always been changing
2. This reduction isn't enough
3. CO2 is plant food
So you depend on climate scientists for information about past climates, but you consider them daft liars on the topic of human-caused climate change. Then you take the dual position that even though climate change has nothing to do with GHGs or human activity, the reduction isn't enough. Then you yammer insanely about CO2 and plant growth.
Here's another kind of "plant food": human excrement. Maybe we shouldn't regulate that, either. It's plant food, after all.”
GreshamGuy on Jun 2, 2014 at 08:39:18
“Wow, you really DON'T know what you're talking about. That's all babble with only the slightest connection with the reality of the physical, biological and chemical processes involved.”
“I think the American Family Association should refuse to send or accept ANY mail through or from the USPS, because the Postal Service has issued the Harvey Milk stamp.
This would be intellectually consistent with their beliefs. Since the Postal Service is honoring "the radical homosexual lobby" (whatever that is), how can the AFA have anything at all to do with the Postal Service?
Isn't using the Postal Service in any way supporting the Postal Service that is honoring the dreaded "radical homosexual lobby?"
So, folks over there at the AFA, no mail for you!”
“So, we know the Republicans are happy to sacrifice the life and freedom of an American soldier to the letter of the law.
Laws are just "rules." Sometimes, depending on circumstances, rules need to be broken, there are higher rules than "rules."
Petty allegiance to rules, in exigent circumstances, is the trademark of petty minds and petty souls.”
Broken Spell on Jun 1, 2014 at 03:56:28
“I think it is no more complicated than the fact that the Congress cannot be entrusted with a secret of military importance. And that assertion would be the beginning and end of any civilian investigation into this matter. If you do not approve of the sitting Commander in Chief, you should either have elected a different one, or else not entered into a state of war.”
Art Johnson on Jun 1, 2014 at 02:32:46
“is there a single republican that said anything that YOU are inferring? Republicans asked a good question, and so should you, what happens with the 5 high ranking members that were released? Won't there be more hostages now?”