I’m right, and you’re an evil monster

[Stevicus]

Its not as corrupt as some. For example it doesn't shake down businesses to take their profits away like in some places. It also lets foreigners become citizens, has written laws which must be interpreted according to precedents, has enforced some food safety guidelines, protects property rights, lets people exercise our rights etc. It could be a lot more corrupt.

I think there is some measure of corruption, but you're right in that it's not as bad as other countries. However, I've noticed a sense of apprehension about the direction the country is going. Not that things are necessarily bad now, but that things are steadily getting worse and not enough is being done to change our course or stem the tide of whatever may befall us in the future.

We know what challenges we face, such as climate change, supply chain problems, shortages of key commodities and resources, an aging and antiquated infrastructure, an education and healthcare system lagging far behind that of the rest of the developed world. In addition, there are problems with potential enemies overseas, and there's no telling where that might lead us. We have domestic problems - social unrest, crime, a rise in mass shootings, and a far more aggressive and recklessly dangerous element arising on the right.

At least on the surface level and what it looks like from ground level, it seems the government has done a pretty lousy job lately. They've just let things rot and wither on the vine. Sure, they can point their fingers and blame other politicians, other parties. It doesn't even really matter who's to blame at this point, but it would be nice if people could pay more attention to the situation we're facing.

That's what seems to be feeding the rhetoric these days, as it seems more about who's to blame as opposed to taking a hard, objective, rational look at the current situation and how we got here. The problem is that we have a peculiar of separating and compartmentalizing how we discuss political topics, rather than taking into consideration the larger picture of all the topics all at the same time and consolidating one's worldview into a single equation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Spiritus Mundi [Latin] - Spirit Of The World. I made reference to the US as a republic in the guise of a democracy, but I see them all, that is all governments of the world, as one. So, keeping in mind that I'm not an active participant of the worldly arrangement, I'm only an observer, to me the question is, who is the enemy of the state? The people. The people are their own enemy. It really doesn't matter if they are represented by the alleged "smartly elected" or any other group or individual. Divide and conquer is best that they can come up with. It's all the same. Which is best is subjective. If you are happy with what you are given in your land it doesn't mean the people of the nations your representatives destroyed in the process are as equally happy with the arrangement.

So you are talking about the corruption inherent in governing, period.

If it can be, it will be. Divide and conquer. A house divided doesn't stand for long, relatively speaking. Keeping in context with the OP, the current monstrosity isn't anything new, it just seems that way because the world is shrinking figuratively. The more the people are educated the less educated they become. The more tolerant the people strive to be, the less tolerant they become. The more they seek freedom the more enslaved they are. The more advanced they are the closer they are to their own destruction. Not just some other group, tribe or nation. All of them.

It doesn't matter if they use religion, politics or science to achieve that end.

I happen to believe when that self destruction is apparent to everyone some other arrangement planned long ago will intercede. And so that is how I think and act. I'm not going to go to some other place and kill people for any reason. I'm not going to step into a supermarket or school and start mowing people down. I'm not going to blow up an abortion clinic. I'm not going to tell anyone else how to think or live.

I observe.

I'm glad you're not going to kill people. Me either. No nation lasts forever, so far. Definitely not.

 

[Brickjectivity]

education

Seems not to be focusing on making the students learn. They can, apparently, get a degree and know not much. I don't know how things are currently, but I remember attending several public school classes that were quite disorderly and difficult to learn in as a result. One was a Spanish I class. One was a shop class. I don't remember which others were, but man. What a waste of my time some classes were.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Still a bit unclear as to what you meant, and now I'm not sure you want me to understand you. Stay mysterious if you like.

I thought I was pretty clear. Not mysterious at all. My solution is to keep separate from the problem. Live by the sword, die by the sword. If you are in a battle for control you can expect a lot of noise, winners, losers, death, suffering. And it probably isn't about anything other than control. Greed and corruption are form of that. That is what all of the nonsense we are seeing is all about. If spoiled children don't get their way they throw a fit. Another form of control. I don't understand what's so cryptic or mysterious about that. It's very simple.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think there is some measure of corruption, but you're right in that it's not as bad as other countries. However, I've noticed a sense of apprehension about the direction the country is going. Not that things are necessarily bad now, but that things are steadily getting worse and not enough is being done to change our course or stem the tide of whatever may befall us in the future.

We know what challenges we face, such as climate change, supply chain problems, shortages of key commodities and resources, an aging and antiquated infrastructure, an education and healthcare system lagging far behind that of the rest of the developed world. In addition, there are problems with potential enemies overseas, and there's no telling where that might lead us. We have domestic problems - social unrest, crime, a rise in mass shootings, and a far more aggressive and recklessly dangerous element arising on the right.

Agree!

At least on the surface level and what it looks like from ground level, it seems the government has done a pretty lousy job lately. They've just let things rot and wither on the vine. Sure, they can point their fingers and blame other politicians, other parties. It doesn't even really matter who's to blame at this point, but it would be nice if people could pay more attention to the situation we're facing.

That's what seems to be feeding the rhetoric these days, as it seems more about who's to blame as opposed to taking a hard, objective, rational look at the current situation and how we got here. The problem is that we have a peculiar of separating and compartmentalizing how we discuss political topics, rather than taking into consideration the larger picture of all the topics all at the same time and consolidating one's worldview into a single equation.

And despite positive thinking it can indeed all go down the drain. I think we are due for another great awakening of some sort. They will say these were twilight times or that we lived in a relative low period culturally.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

So you are talking about the corruption inherent in governing, period.

Not just the corruption inherent in governing, but corruption in general. It's everywhere. In everything. Even in each of us. I'm talking about the world. Not just politics.

No nation lasts forever, so far. Definitely not.

True, but I'm talking about all of the nations as a whole. The world.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I thought I was pretty clear. Not mysterious at all. My solution is to keep separate from the problem. Live by the sword, die by the sword. If you are in a battle for control you can expect a lot of noise, winners, losers, death, suffering. And it probably isn't about anything other than control. Greed and corruption are form of that. That is what all of the nonsense we are seeing is all about. If spoiled children don't get their way they throw a fit. Another form of control. I don't understand what's so cryptic or mysterious about that. It's very simple.

I work in the food service industry and not in government, but I do work for pay. I am part of the cycle of greed . Its not ideal, but it is better than what I used to do, just sitting around. I'm very proud to be a worker bee. If I wish I can donate to a cause. I can pay taxes, buy presents, buy things for myself. Its very positive and uplifting.

Not just the corruption inherent in governing, but corruption in general. It's everywhere. In everything. Even in each of us. I'm talking about the world. Not just politics.

Definitely it is all over, so there isn't much point in us pointing fingers?

True, but I'm talking about all of the nations as a whole. The world.

True. On the positive side dirt is the corruption in which new flowers grow.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I always thought the term "democracy in a republic" was a more apt and accurate phrase to describe America's government - rather than having to choose one or the other, republic or democracy. Some might say "democratic-republic," but either way, we're both.

So, you don't agree with my assessment of each? Democracy being majority rules and republic being individual rights? I'm not talking political parties, I'm not talking Democratic and Republican. If you don't agree, how would you define each and how do they work together as one?

I don't know that it's necessarily an illusion, or at least, I would generally refer to it is the standard order political lies and BS which has become the staple of party politics. Not only that, but it seems to extend to all branches and parts of government.

Okay. It seems to me that lies and BS are illusionary tactics. Elections create the illusion of choice, as Carlin said, and the apparent conflict of party politics a distraction. When I was a teenager my younger brother was into the WWF. They had to have a bad guy and they had to have a good guy. Pick your guy. They created the illusion of conflict but they're both paid by the same people. The people. Now, it was just a show, but it was real too.

I think the article used abortion and gun control as well-known examples that most people are familiar with.

(Heck, I remember back to my high school debate classes in the late 70s. When we were given a list of possible topics to debate, gun control and abortion were at the top of the list. Capital punishment was also a popular topic, so that's the one I chose.)

But I can see similar trends when it comes to other topics.

Yeah. I don't think it needs to change. If it works. Also it isn't that it isn't real. To me it was a wake up call when I got really, just, in a constant state of rage over what was being done with the so called pandemic. After doing some research I realized the medical establishment have been manufacturing and fabricating pandemics for at least the last 100 years. And I realized I was about to stroke because of what amounted to nothing more than a mild cold. So, why would I need to be so upset about it? No reason that I could see. Other than some newly founded mistrust I have for the medical establishment on top of what I already had, there's nothing there. Just a lot of noise. And it's the same with everything.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I work in the food service industry and not in government, but I do work for pay. I am part of the cycle of greed . Its not ideal, but it is better than what I used to do, just sitting around. I'm very proud to be a worker bee. If I wish I can donate to a cause. I can pay taxes, buy presents, buy things for myself. Its very positive and uplifting.

Great. I'm sincerely happy to hear that.

Definitely it is all over, so there isn't much point in us pointing fingers?

Uh. Well, I'm skeptical by nature. If I love something I think it very important to be critical of it. If I hate something, that doesn't mean I wish harm upon it, it just means I won't be a part of it. That neutrality doesn't imply being blind to it. I observe. Sometimes when I observe I don't see the big picture. But I try up to a point. Depending upon necessity and preference. Meaning that if I'm not a part of it then it doesn't matter what I think. So, again, I don't care about abortion or gun control. Really, I don't want any measure of control at all because I see the system as broken. And we, that is humanity, can't fix it.

True. On the positive side dirt is the corruption in which new flowers grow.

True. And fertilizer is important as well. But then when the season has run it's course the flowers die and perhaps are replaced the next season. So, that isn't a bad thing is it.

 

[Stevicus]

My first thought: the Overton Window is a hell of a drug.

The discourse in the US right now is mostly about right wing extremism on the one side and slightly backing off from right wing extremism on the other. Suggesting that both positions are equally worthy of respect and deserve to be equally heard out strikes me as some gaslighty, sea-liony, right wing apologetics.

I mean, these sorts of appeals to discourse are never about asking the right to be more accommodating. It's always "hey - let that white supremacist say his peace" and never "hey - let's hear BLM out."

I don't suggest that both positions are equally worthy of respect and deserve to be equally heard. But I also think that a civilized society is capable of reacting to it and dealing with it on an adult level.

Of course, people of any and all factions and political beliefs are going to speak whether anyone likes it or not. It's up to the public to decide whether or not they want to listen. Right now, public opinion seems to be in a state of flux.

I think what's often missing in much of the public discourse is any real sense of historical context. Forget civility, politics has never been truly civil or nice. But as you say about right-wing extremism, there's an atmosphere of political agitation going on, which has always been around, but it seems to be more noticeable these days. A lot of people say it's due to Trump, although I would also look at other contributing factors which had been around a lot longer.

Sometimes, with all the bickering and sniping back and forth, I wonder if people just pick a side just to pick a side, or whether they truly grasp the realities of the US political system and the mechanisms by which we operate. I've been wondering about that for the past several years now.

 

[Stevicus]

Agree!

And despite positive thinking it can indeed all go down the drain. I think we are due for another great awakening of some sort. They will say these were twilight times or that we lived in a relative low period culturally.

I'm not sure what kind of awakening we're in for at this point, but from all indications at present, I don't see it being a "great" one. In fact, it might be right awful.

Though, I guess positive thinking is nice. There is something to be said for being positive and optimistic (as long as it's real and genuine and not the phony corporate-inspired "positivity" which is encouraged).

But then I think of issues like the ever-shrinking water levels at Lake Mead and realize we can't just think water into existence. Some people might pray for rain, pray for water - for whatever good that might do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To be the Devil's Advocate I'll throw it out there sometimes the other side doesn't have a good or valid point. Like YEC. There's no scientific reason to give it any grounds as valid as science does not support or back it up. With gay marriage, there is no valid civic reason to ban it, and the reasons are personal religious morality.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

To be the Devil's Advocate I'll throw it out there sometimes the other side doesn't have a good or valid point. Like YEC. There's no scientific reason to give it any grounds as valid as science does not support or back it up. With gay marriage, there is no valid civic reason to ban it, and the reasons are personal religious morality.

Let's see. The word devil means slanderer; deceiver - does that mean you are advocating a position which you think is deceptive. I agree with you on YEC, but not because there's no scientific reason. Science isn't infallible, it's merely speculation given the current data.

It can really get it wrong. Like, with fat.

I think YEC is an example of group think gone wrong. Everyone currently thinks that if science says something it must be true. So, YEC wasn't true when everyone thought it was and it isn't untrue just because you say that science says it is and everyone thinks what science says is true.

 

[Stevicus]

So, you don't agree with my assessment of each? Democracy being majority rules and republic being individual rights? I'm not talking political parties, I'm not talking Democratic and Republican. If you don't agree, how would you define each and how do they work together as one?

I don't agree that we're either one or the other. We are both a democracy and a republic. It's not a pure democracy where majority rules - at least not all the time. We're also a republic in that we have a system of laws and sense of duty to Constitutional principles which, among other things, entail individual rights. So, I agree on that, but there's more to it than just individual rights. In a republic, if the leadership decides to change the Constitution or restrict people's rights through legal means, then supporters of the republic would be duty-bound to follow and abide by such rulings. If it goes against the will of the majority, then it could lead to political discord. But in a democracy, the leadership is presumed to be carrying out the will of the majority.

In the case of our Constitution, it can't be changed or amended unless 3/4 of the state legislatures agree to do so. That's no easy feat even in normal times, but nowadays, it's probably impossible. That's considered a reasonable safeguard against whimsical, capricious actions which might be brought about by tyrants or a majority of people who might temporarily be in a foul mood (which is how we ended up with the Patriot Act and other post 9/11 measures).

Okay. It seems to me that lies and BS are illusionary tactics. Elections create the illusion of choice, as Carlin said, and the apparent conflict of party politics a distraction. When I was a teenager my younger brother was into the WWF. They had to have a bad guy and they had to have a good guy. Pick your guy. They created the illusion of conflict but they're both paid by the same people. The people. Now, it was just a show, but it was real too.

I never really cared much for wrestling or the WWF. When I was a kid, Nixon was President and I could tell a lot of people hated him. "Tricky Dick," they called him. The issues were different, yet somehow not much different than they are now. I think I gravitated towards the Democrats because my natural proclivities were to sympathize with the underdog, the oppressed, the poor, downtrodden. My maternal grandfather always said that the Democrats were for the working man, while the Republicans were only for the rich. So, since we weren't a rich family, it seemed logical to go with the Democrats.

However, on my dad's side of the family, they were all conservative, Midwestern Bible Belt Republicans. Their support of Republicans didn't really have much to do with rich or poor, as much as it seemed more a matter of conservative Christian values and U.S. patriotism that seemed to be common, even among many Democrats of that earlier era.

Neither party is really the same as it used to be. Some of the same ideas and issues, as well as the dirty tricks, lies, BS, and other nefarious shenanigans - those will always be with us, in one form or another.

It may be a show, and sometimes I think there's a certain appeal to the various political dramas which play out on people's screens on a daily basis.

I think some attention should also be given to the medium itself and how social media and other internet technologies have affected politics and influenced public opinion. The invention of radio, film, TV all had an effect. Newspapers and the major national media companies still carried a lot of weight, but the internet has been a brand new animal on the scene which has been difficult to tame.

Yeah. I don't think it needs to change. If it works. Also it isn't that it isn't real. To me it was a wake up call when I got really, just, in a constant state of rage over what was being done with the so called pandemic. After doing some research I realized the medical establishment have been manufacturing and fabricating pandemics for at least the last 100 years. And I realized I was about to stroke because of what amounted to nothing more than a mild cold. So, why would I need to be so upset about it? No reason that I could see. Other than some newly founded mistrust I have for the medical establishment on top of what I already had, there's nothing there. Just a lot of noise. And it's the same with everything.

I think that fear and mistrust is widespread in our society, no doubt about it. That would certain include, but not be limited to, mistrust in the medical establishment. But just as with any large industry or for-profit enterprise where there's a lot of money on the table and lots of hands reaching into the pile, it's hard to expect much honesty in such situations.

I don't know that the medical establishment has been manufacturing and fabricating pandemics. I don't know how that could be done.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think YEC is an example of group think gone wrong. Everyone currently thinks that if science says something it must be true. So, YEC wasn't true when everyone thought it was and it isn't untrue just because you say that science says it is and everyone thinks what science says is true.

There is not a shred of evidence to support YEC, and a literal universe of evidence that shows it can't be true. Even evidence left behind from our own species leaves no room for the possibility of YEC, not unless one wants to introduce the idea of god playing a cruel joke to deliberately mislead people.
Science isn't infallible, but we definitely know some things for sure and it's absurd to try to use technicalities to cling to ideas that are just impossible. Such as, the Information Age is based on various science theories and laws being correct. This is also how we know wifi and 5G do not cause cancer, because we know it is nonionized radiation and just too weak to cause breaks in DNA. And we should give no ground to these ideas either, lest we cater to everyone's boogeyman.

 

[Stevicus]

There is not a shred of evidence to support YEC, and a literal universe of evidence that shows it can't be true. Even evidence left behind from our own species leaves no room for the possibility of YEC, not unless one wants to introduce the idea of god playing a cruel joke to deliberately mislead people.

Well, it could be that. If the Bible is anything to go by, then God does seem to have a rather cruel sense of humor. But I usually relegate YEC to the same category as those who say "maybe we live in some kind of Matrix" like in the movie. Maybe we do. Who am I to say otherwise? But if this is what we're stuck with, then this is what we're stuck with.

To me, it doesn't matter if someone believes the Earth is old or young or middle aged, just as long as they still care about the Earth in the here and now.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I don't agree that we're either one or the other. We are both a democracy and a republic. It's not a pure democracy where majority rules - at least not all the time.

Well, I agree completely. But that isn't what I said. I said Democracy is promulgated. Republic is the official archaic narrative. Both are illusions. The majority never rule, the elite rule. The representatives sell out to the highest bidder and the illusion of Democracy is created. It doesn't really matter what you call it. The entire system, globally, has been bought and paid for. The rest of it is just show. There are real aspects of it but nothing seems real and it seems like the ones making the most noise get what they want, but they don't. The ones with the most money get what they want and they are not going to be the ones making noise or drawing attention to themselves.

We're also a republic in that we have a system of laws and sense of duty to Constitutional principles which, among other things, entail individual rights. So, I agree on that, but there's more to it than just individual rights. In a republic, if the leadership decides to change the Constitution or restrict people's rights through legal means, then supporters of the republic would be duty-bound to follow and abide by such rulings. If it goes against the will of the majority, then it could lead to political discord.

Oh they wouldn't want that! Or would they?

But in a democracy, the leadership is presumed to be carrying out the will of the majority.

Like I said in this thread, maybe not to you, but this is theoretical. In my opinion. And it's not even really a subject that I'm particularly interested in. So, take it with a grain of salt.

In the case of our Constitution, it can't be changed or amended unless 3/4 of the state legislatures agree to do so. That's no easy feat even in normal times, but nowadays, it's probably impossible. That's considered a reasonable safeguard against whimsical, capricious actions which might be brought about by tyrants or a majority of people who might temporarily be in a foul mood (which is how we ended up with the Patriot Act and other post 9/11 measures).

But the Patriot Act was written in, what? The 1990's? When was that Sax player president? I think it was the 1990's. By Joe Bidden, if I'm not mistaken, which I wouldn't be unless it had been written in crayon and changed dramatically before coming to fruition. That doesn't seem to make any sense because I was being ironical. He didn't write it he was told to take credit for it.

I never really cared much for wrestling or the WWF.

I hated it! That and the Smurfs. Equally.

When I was a kid, Nixon was President and I could tell a lot of people hated him. "Tricky Dick," they called him. The issues were different, yet somehow not much different than they are now. I think I gravitated towards the Democrats because my natural proclivities were to sympathize with the underdog, the oppressed, the poor, downtrodden. My maternal grandfather always said that the Democrats were for the working man, while the Republicans were only for the rich. So, since we weren't a rich family, it seemed logical to go with the Democrats.

Yeah, I remember Dick.

However, on my dad's side of the family, they were all conservative, Midwestern Bible Belt Republicans. Their support of Republicans didn't really have much to do with rich or poor, as much as it seemed more a matter of conservative Christian values and U.S. patriotism that seemed to be common, even among many Democrats of that earlier era.

I had a similar experience. My Dad was a staunch Democrat and filled my young mind with stories of the evil rich and the downtrodden poor. But when I watched him I could see right trough it. He hated anyone richer or poorer than he was. He thought of himself as poor because he had been poor growing up but by the time I came along and was old enough to think for myself (6 years old) he was pretty well off. I think that pretty well sums up the Democratic party history. Slavery, Jim Crow, etc.

Neither party is really the same as it used to be. Some of the same ideas and issues, as well as the dirty tricks, lies, BS, and other nefarious shenanigans - those will always be with us, in one form or another.

I don't think they always will.

It may be a show, and sometimes I think there's a certain appeal to the various political dramas which play out on people's screens on a daily basis.

I think some attention should also be given to the medium itself and how social media and other internet technologies have affected politics and influenced public opinion. The invention of radio, film, TV all had an effect. Newspapers and the major national media companies still carried a lot of weight, but the internet has been a brand new animal on the scene which has been difficult to tame.

I suppose. That's what I mean when I say the world is getting smaller. And I think they've got the new animal in it's paddock. It's only a matter of time to transition it to the stable.

I think that fear and mistrust is widespread in our society, no doubt about it. That would certain include, but not be limited to, mistrust in the medical establishment. But just as with any large industry or for-profit enterprise where there's a lot of money on the table and lots of hands reaching into the pile, it's hard to expect much honesty in such situations.

It's like anything else. When a charity becomes dependent upon money it's a matter of feeding the beast. It's corrupted. The same as religion, politics, science or anything else.

I don't know that the medical establishment has been manufacturing and fabricating pandemics. I don't know how that could be done.

Jackson county Missouri, 1921. Kansas City. The American Medical Association is sued by a patient advocacy group - I can't recall their name. The court subpoena duces tecum reveals the recorded meeting of the AMA and doctors which clearly state that business was slow due to good health and prosperity. They needed a pandemic. So they advertised in local newspapers and flyers. They warned of a pandemic and set up public vaccine stalls throughout the area. The court found not one case in the city, county, state or region until vaccines were administered. A vaccine, of course, is an injection of attenuated pathogen. So only after vaccines did people began getting sick. It shut down many businesses and the only ones seemingly not getting sick were the unvaccinated who then had to tend to the sick. And still didn't get the pathogen. I can't remember what it was. I'm thinking the swine flu. But that may be a later fabrication in 1976 when I was 10 years old. In that case there were, globally, only 4 unconfirmed cases. There were other cases. Most recently Sars, Zika, for example.

ETA: Excuse me. I have to get better at this. Words are very important to me. Grammar, editing, articulation, coherency, and cohesiveness, not so much apparently. I'll work on that.

Better Video (corrected URL: Bit Chute links are deemed inappropriate due to the combined spelling)

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

There is not a shred of evidence to support YEC, and a literal universe of evidence that shows it can't be true.

I agree with your conclusion just not the way you state it. You say there isn't evidence to support it. There's always evidence. In saying there is no evidence you seem to me to be suggest that the interpretation of evidence is infallible. There is evidence of YEC it just isn't very convincing and the reason people want to interpret it in support of YEC is Christian tradition. That traditional interpretation itself isn't supported scripturally.

Even evidence left behind from our own species leaves no room for the possibility of YEC, not unless one wants to introduce the idea of god playing a cruel joke to deliberately mislead people.

Or man wanting to do the same. Or a misinterpretation of the evidence which could be later corrected. Not in the case of YEC, but the evidence itself without the connection to YEC.

Science isn't infallible, but we definitely know some things for sure and it's absurd to try to use technicalities to cling to ideas that are just impossible.

I hear that a lot. It often appears to be contradictory. Science isn't infallible but . . . the evidence is clear. The case is settled. It's impossible to be wrong. If that isn't infallible what is?

Such as, the Information Age is based on various science theories and laws being correct. This is also how we know wifi and 5G do not cause cancer, because we know it is nonionized radiation and just too weak to cause breaks in DNA. And we should give no ground to these ideas either, lest we cater to everyone's boogeyman.

Everyone's boogeyman . . . well, if you say it that way. Look. There's a list as long as my arm on science being wrong, so there isn't any reason for it to do anything but examine. Any more than myself. And I don't think that "it" does anything other than that. Then there seems to be people who put faith in science not unlike with religion.

And, I'm sorry, I meant to comment on the rest of your post but forgot in all of the excitement.

With gay marriage, there is no valid civic reason to ban it, and the reasons are personal religious morality.

I think I pretty much agree with that, though it is difficult to say what civic validity there is to any marriage arrangement. It has become meaningless.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I hear that a lot. It often appears to be contradictory. Science isn't infallible but . . . the evidence is clear. The case is settled. It's impossible to be wrong. If that isn't infallible what is?

We can look at things like an electronic device and exactly explain what and why the electricity does what it does. We even have laws to explain this because we know and understand this process so well.

I agree with your conclusion just not the way you state it. You say there isn't evidence to support it. There's always evidence. In saying there is no evidence you seem to me to be suggest that the interpretation of evidence is infallible. There is evidence of YEC it just isn't very convincing and the reason people want to interpret it in support of YEC is Christian tradition. That traditional interpretation itself isn't supported scripturally.

This is the using technicalities to cling on to something that is not possible. Such as, their "evidence" is no different than declaring you have evidence that vampires are real and pull out s copy of Dracula as your evidence. That doesn't work. Worse, even, because as you point out YEC itself is not Biblically supported.

I think I pretty much agree with that, though it is difficult to say what civic validity there is to any marriage arrangement. It has become meaningless.

That, of course, opinion to say it has become meaningless.

Or man wanting to do the same. Or a misinterpretation of the evidence which could be later corrected. Not in the case of YEC, but the evidence itself without the connection to YEC.

We know that is highly unlikely given the many years and decades and even centuries we have been consistently finding evidence that shows us the Earth is very old. It's like standing down a charging bison because it might stop before it hits you. That is technically true, and yes it can happen, but it is an extremely foolish assumption, is astronomically unlikely to happen, and should not be assumed it will happen. It won't. If a bison charges at you and all you do is stand there you're going to get hit by a biological pickup truck.

Everyone's boogeyman . . . well, if you say it that way. Look. There's a list as long as my arm on science being wrong, so there isn't any reason for it to do anything but examine. Any more than myself. And I don't think that "it" does anything other than that. Then there seems to be people who put faith in science not unlike with religion.

It's not a faith like religion, but acceptance we do actually know many things for certain. Like Germ Theory. We shouldn't have to acknlowledge the technical aspects that it may not be right because we have observed, tested, and experimented with the probably millions of times by now, if not billions. We may not know exactly when death occurs, but we know factually many substances are toxic and deadly in high enough amounts. We even know how to measure this.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

We can look at things like an electronic device and exactly explain what and why the electricity does what it does. We even have laws to explain this because we know and understand this process so well.

But the interpretation of the data is fallible, correct? Our knowledge subject to change and the entire process potentially corruptible. Because any time you start to suggest you know something you limit yourself to that paradigm. Science isn't certainty. It may be fairly reliable, but it is subject to the same human weaknesses as anything else. You're talking about electricity, I'm talking about science.

This is the using technicalities to cling on to something that is not possible. Such as, their "evidence" is no different than declaring you have evidence that vampires are real and pull out s copy of Dracula as your evidence.

What about Frankenstein? If you're still talking about electricity and I'm talking about science I think it best we use Frankenstein instead of Dracula. We could do the Matrix, but I think the entire electricity/science debate is off topic. Even YEC seems off topic but I can tell you that if you're alluding to the Bible by comparison your evidence would be lacking.

That doesn't work. Worse, even, because as you point out YEC itself is not Biblically supported.

Correct, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence. Let me summarize my position. YEC is false. Almost certainly. There is poor evidence to support it. The evidence against it is better. Interpretation is fallible. Science is fallible. The scriptural evidence doesn't support it. The tradition is in support of it with no scientific or scriptural evidence. There's a difference between theology and scripture. Theology is the interpretation of the divine. Divinity can be applied to anything. So can corruption. Biblical study is the study of what the Bible says, whereas Biblical theology is the study of what it might mean.

That, of course, opinion to say it has become meaningless.

Yes. And subjective as well.

We know that is highly unlikely given the many years and decades and even centuries we have been consistently finding evidence that shows us the Earth is very old. It's like standing down a charging bison because it might stop before it hits you. That is technically true, and yes it can happen, but it is an extremely foolish assumption, is astronomically unlikely to happen, and should not be assumed it will happen. It won't. If a bison charges at you and all you do is stand there you're going to get hit by a biological pickup truck.

No. I can speak from personal experience that isn't necessarily true. A friend of mine had a bison farm.

It's not a faith like religion, but acceptance we do actually know many things for certain.

Well, I can demonstrate with almost complete certainty that the Bible doesn't support YEC but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence for YEC, which means that evidence and it's interpretation are fallible and subject to change. So to say there is no evidence of YEC you either mean you dismiss all evidence in favor of it and/or science is infallible. You see what I mean? Evidence doesn't establish certainty. That's really the point.

Like Germ Theory. We shouldn't have to acknlowledge the technical aspects that it may not be right because we have observed, tested, and experimented with the probably millions of times by now, if not billions. We may not know exactly when death occurs, but we know factually many substances are toxic and deadly in high enough amounts. We even know how to measure this.

Tell that to Ignaz Semmelweis who was institutionalized and basically murdered because he suggested the germ theory before science did. Science at that time held to the miasmatic school of medicine. So, that was from the dark ages to the late 19th century. All kinds of evidence for the germ theory was rejected. All kinds of evidence for miasmas prevalent. It's a matter of interpretation so exactly why is dogmatic science not science? Or not religion for that matter.