|
Welcome back pollution :(
I knew the clear sky in HK (ultimate oxymoron!) recently was too good to be true :( Enjoyed the past few months while it lasted :(
Apparently pollution levels yesterday in Central were the highest since March this year. |
Oh for Gawd's sake, one slightly hazy day and you are off wingeing again!
|
Max make that 2 hazy days now ;)
|
During the 2008 Beijing Olympics the Chinese government shut down all polluting factories in order to "improve" the air quality enough to host the games.
Well guess what, the Shenzhen Universiade ended on 23rd August 2011.... |
Stop whinning, it's why we get paid the big bucks, fly new shiny jets, get quick commands, great pension plan.......NOT
|
...met two of my best friends because of that: my childrens asthma doctor and dermatologist :sad:
|
Fac6, the not so funny thing about the " clear skies " is that even when it looks clear, the sulphur dioxide, PM 10, and nitrogen dioxide levels are all around or above the WHO limits.
Now that the really crappy air ( 8-10 times WHO levels the past few days ) is lasting 9-10 months, I wonder how much money is enough to poison your loved ones ? Even if those loved ones are yourselves . Just keep in mind once you have damaged your or your families respiratory system, it is IRREVERSABLE, simple as that. So I agree with max, quit whining and do something. Enjoy |
|
Life Expectancy
Ah yes DMN, that old chestnut. Hong Kong residents in denial keep pointing to that. When people like you scurry to this statistic I am reminded of Donad Tsangs's infamous quote:
"The life expectancy in Hong Kong is among the highest in the world ... you can come to only one conclusion: we have the most environmentally friendly place for people, for executives, for Hong Kong people to live." You just have to look out the window and/or do a modicum of research to realise how stunningly stupid this comment actually is. How long did it take HKG to establish this life expectancy? Over that time what was the air quality like? What is the magnitude and rate of the change in air quality like in the last decade? What effect is this having to the health of HKG residents? Where will HKG place in your coveted rankings in 5/10/20 years? Maybe you should do some light reading...but I bet you knew all this already. How's that denial going? Life Expectancy Increased by Clean Air - Air Pollution and Life Expectancy Air pollution in Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pollution reducing visibility, life expectancy | Clean Air Network Hong Kong roadside air pollution hits record high | Environment | guardian.co.uk MMS: Error |
jizz man, get a life. Just sell your overpriced shoebox and get out while you still have your health. Or are you staying a while longer for CX/KA to pay off another property for you? Oh yeah, and all that economic development in China (mainlanders with lots of cash) is also driving property prices in HK through the roof.
|
DMN,
Nice nonsensical rant to someones quite logical arguement against your 'life expectancy' post. If you had come back with something else, maybe some facts and debate, you would gain much more respect than that outburst. |
Santa, he can't because there is no credible debate " for " pollution. It's killing roughly 1500 people a year in HK, millions in China, and take your guess at how many people lead a reduced quality of life because of it, including all the poor kids coughing and hacking their guts up for most of the year.
It still startles me that people put money before health because let's be honest that's what it's all about, the money. |
If you really want to understand why humans make poor long term decisions, then have a look at the 'evolution of rationality' theory. The basic concept is that we have evolved as short term decision makers and are geared towards making poor long term decisions. I'll quote a biology professor from the University of Indiana as he has said it better than I ever would.
"Humans stay out in the sun too long. In the short term, it has rewards, but in the long term, it's harmful." He adds, "That seems to be a problem with a lot of human behavior, that the scale over which humans make decisions is too short. I argue that we evolved from food-gatherers under conditions where food was probably spatially auto-correlated (concentrated in location) and that long-term pooling, or retention, of information in a hunter-gatherer society is not very adaptive." In other words evolution has geared our brains to making decisions on short term evidence, mostly visual. If we don't see a short term effect from pollution, than our brains give that threat a low weighting against the marginal utility of making money in the short term. So it doesn't matter how much we quote statistics on however many people are dying of respiratory illness, the natural human reaction is too undervalue the information. The power of visual short term evidence is what works. Hence the use of graphic images in some Western countries anti smoking campaigns. A similar campaign in HK might be a start. Put a billboard up of a person who has died from pollution induced respiratory illness, possibly an autopsy photo, and you might get greater effect than the occasional newspaper article. I often find that reminding oneself that the development of the modern human mind is but a blip in our evolutionary history, helps bring into clarity why we think(or don't think!) about certain things. In the end we are only a historical moment from the primates. |
What complete rubbish MrClaus. Perhaps the reason people make the choices they do is because of our fallen human nature and personal choice. The whole evolutionary explanation is based on the assumption of naturalism, first we assume naturalism is true, then we look for answers based on this naturalism and when we find them we consider our naturalism confirmed, rather circular if you ask me.
If human behavior is nothing more than the result of random movements of electrons in our brains then we can't be held responsible for anything, in fact we may as well throw out the whole criminal justice system as to hold anyone responsible for anything would be grossly unfair. This is the absurd place that this kind of thinking takes us. It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who claim this kind of evolutionary explanation are the very same people who jump up and down about injustice in the world! For goodness sake you can't have it both ways, we are either evolved and no one is truly responsible for their behavior or there is some other explanation that makes sense of morality and justice. Luckily there is another explanation that doesn't resort to explanations based on naturalism or humanist's creation myth stories. |
What Santa is quoting does seem to make some sense, if humans really looked carefully and rationally at the possible long term effects of living in Hong Kong, or say, smoking, would any rational thinking person actually do it ?
Put it another way : Here is a gun with 4700 chambers and only one bullet in it, I will point it at your, or your childs head, and pull the trigger. In return I will pay you a modest wage over the next 10 years. Sound like a good deal ? Notes: 1 in 4700 people will die from pollution this year. Modest wage ? well I don't see too many pilots in Hk living in a 20 room mansion with 2 brand new Mercs parked out the front, so yes, modest. If human behavior is nothing more than the result of random movements of electrons in our brains then we can't be held responsible for anything, in fact we may as well throw out the whole criminal justice system as to hold anyone responsible for anything would be grossly unfair. This is the absurd place that this kind of thinking takes us. It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who claim this kind of evolutionary explanation are the very same people who jump up and down about injustice in the world! For goodness sake you can't have it both ways, we are either evolved and no one is truly responsible for their behavior or there is some other explanation that makes sense of morality and justice |
No properly educated/informed/knowledgeable person thinks that evolution nor its power source, natural selection, has a goal or purpose: It's just the way it is. The same thing goes with purpose. Lots of people don't like feeling so unimportant in the Universe, but that's just the way it is. Just like gravity, light, atomic composition, tooth structure, skin pigmentation, Jupiter's density, etc.
|
With respect Skillet, any actual 'educated/informed/knowledgeable person' would know that natural selection can't power anything, it's a conserving force. This is why evolutionists claim mutations as the raw material that natural selection then acts on. The only problem is mutations have never been observed to make new information, biologically speaking, so the question remains, where did it come from in the first place?
The hypocrisy astounds me, on the one hand we love the evolutionary no purpose story as it allows us to avoid accountability to a creator, but then we demand justice when some kid gets beaten up by adults in China. If there is no purpose, and our actions are simply the result of our genes, why is it bad to beat up a kid??? |
More uninformed anti-evolution drivel (why aren't religious nutters ever "anti-relativity" or "anti-gravity"?!?).
Your nonsensical "biological information (a mysterious concept stunningly undefined by any creationist) doesn't increase as a result of mutation" argument is straight out of the Discovery Institute's "Guide To Takin' Down them Darn Evil-utionists YEE-HAW!" pamphlet. As for your "conserving force" description of evolution, if you bring out the "it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!" argument I'm going to vomit on my Feynman's Lecture Notes. It's time to move on - accept we're not in the 14th century anymore and that tens of thousands of people, all of whom who are several orders of magnitude smarter than you and working in multiple scientific disciplines have produced a robust, mutually-buttressed, acutely verifiable and elegant theory that has been described the "single greatest thought in science". If you can disprove evolution, or better still, you have a superior alternative theory (that is falsifiable - i.e. Not your "fairies did it!" one) then you can pickup your Nobel prize tomorrow. Now, claim your fairy stories to your heart's content, because as Iron Skillet alluded to: nature (aka reality) cares not for your irrelevant world view, it just "gets on with it". If your entire basis of morality hinges on the need for a stern father figure threateningly overseeing your every move, then god help us all, pun intended. Why can't you be good without being watched?!? It's really easy if you try - run this 'Gedankenexperiment' : close your eyes and imagine a discovery is made that conclusively proves there can be no supernatural entities, ergo, god disappears in a puff of ontological smoke. Now open your eyes, and review the world around you with this "new knowledge". How has YOUR morality changed with this new knowledge...? (or to put it another way - The best teacher I ever knew once asked my class why we thought people once believed the sun went around the Earth, to which the first answer was: "because that's how it looks". "Hmmm", came his reply, "so, how would it look if the Earth went around the sun??") Back on topic: it's polluted out there. |
On topic, it's polluted. It's polluted alright but not just by the air pollution, Hong Kong is hell on earth, it's a materialistic hell hole. The Dawkins book "the God delusion" was probably written here. This fuzzy thinking is the only way some people can live with their shallow lives, safe in the knowledge that all personal accountability is gone out of the window. It probably explains why it's a haven for banker w@nkers, the most unholy bunch you would ever wish to meet. I fully agree with the bloke above.
|
Superfrozo, I'm sorry if this topic makes you uncomfortable, and clearly it does, but the actual facts don't support you I'm afraid. To answer you points:
1. Gravity and relativity can be observed and tested in the present, they are what is called operational science. No creationist has a problem with this 'real' science. Evolution is an interpretation of things that happened in the unobservable past so is not 'real' science in this sense. To compare evolution with gravity is simply not valid. 2. You can mock creationists all you like but at the end of the day mutations don't make any new information. If you are so sure I'm wrong then please explain, making an assertion by mocking creationists hardly proves your point. What you don't understand is that the DNA in living things is a language and you can't just scramble some letters, or copy extra bits of the same letters and create a completely new message both a sender and receiver can understand. I don't claim to be an expert, in fact this branch of science is only just beginning, but it is becoming apparent there is designed variability built into genomes so it will be interesting to see where this leads. 3. Sorry for your lecture notes but the second laws of thermodynamics is indeed not friendly to Darwinism. Having a source of energy in an open system does no good unless the organism can use that energy. Stand in the sun all day and see what undirected energy does for your biological system. You don't seem to actually have a logical answer to my point on natural selection so I guess I'll leave that one. 4. How exactly is the big bang falsifiable, or better yet, the idea that matter and energy just made themselves out of nothing for the big bang to happen falsifiable? 5. As far as morality goes I never said an atheist could not be good person. It's just that, based on your worldview, you have no logical reason to be. You say yourself there is no purpose to life so why don't people, and many do, just do 'what is right in their own eyes'? In your scenario, when I wake up with no God all I would see is no ultimate accountability. With respect Superfrozo throwing around insults is probably not the best way to attempt to refute what I posted. The majority of humanist scientists believing in a particular theory does not make it right. There are many creationist scientists (which any intelligent and reasonable person could discover with a quick google search), educated in the same secular institutions as your 'thousands of people' who would disagree. Ultimately this is about one's worldview, and the average atheist is desperate to justify his rejection of a creator to whom he is accountable so unless you come back with something worth debating I think I will leave it here. Sorry everyone else for the thread drift, yes the pollution is horrible again. |
Giga,
Not all things are tested in the present: The speed of a car or plane or light requires time to pass in order to measure distance against time. Duh. So does evolution, since life evolves over time. Regardless, there are plenty of irrefutable examples, like the flu that changes every year, that people like you ignore due to your bias and lack of knowledge/understanding/education. Nobody said mutations create new information, except confused theists who don't want facts confusing their delusions. Mutations simply mutate things. Geneitcs were discovered and explained long after the Torah, Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, or, pardon the lack of capitalization, all other religious and non-scientific story books. When something in science is a theory or law, that means nothing observed, demonstrated or explained opposes it. There is nothing wrong with the second law of thermodynamics except for your understanding of it. On a similar note, we now understand UV rays' effects on human skin. While we, living in our solar system, use sunscreen, you can ask your imaginary god to protect you. Or do you use sunscreen too? The world is full of moral people. The creationist/Catholic/religious/Christian/Jewish/Shintoist/Zorastrianist/Buddhist/Satanist/etc. world is full of immoral people. There is no logical link between theism/atheism and morality/immorality any more than there is a link between your parents' eye colour and the density of lead. As for your limited understanding of the big bang, if a creator is required to satisfy your understanding of what is possible, then who created your creator? And your creator's creator? And so on into infinity. If your creator can just "always have been and always will be" why can't the Universe? No, there are no "creationist scientists" as you pretend there are. Either a scientist submits to/understands/respects/admires the scientific method to impart his views, or he does not. Stating an oxymoron does not make your false understanding true. Why won't your god end the pollution, since your book says all you have to do is ask in the name of Jesus and He will do whatever you ask, without any conditions other than the ones believers like you have added to justify the lack of action EVER demonstrated by your imaginary friend in the sky? How can normally intelligent and educated people be so easily brainwashed? Well, think about the power of cults you have heard about, then start to realize you are just another part of another cult, and you will begin to understand what's wrong with "your worldview" vs. being part of and living in and enjoying wonderful reality in the real world. A world that just is and has no purpose....that's just how it is. |
>>>ADDENDUM: Iron Skillet beat me to the punch and his/her post is far more eloquent and succinct than mine - read it instead to save time!<<<
GB, this topic makes me about as uncomfortable as discussing why the Earth is flat or why slavery is not only acceptable but downright fun. By which I mean it only makes me as uncomfortable as thinking that there are people involved in aviation with so little critical thinking skills as to make Sarah Palin look coherent and informed. 1. Evolution has, is and will be continued to be observed. You won't accept that because you are narrow minded, and have reached your conclusion in advance, without regard for the facts. You seem to take this as an ad hominem attack, so by all means disregard what I say. Instead, why don't you walk into ANY (reputable) University on the planet and state your so-called "dis-proofs" of evolutionary theory? Start with the biology department, then go to Physics, Mathematics, Geology/Geography/Oceanography, Engineering... Etc... Hell, you can go the English Literature department - I bet even THEY will laugh at you and your so-called "dis-proofs"! By the way, "Operational science" is another Discovery Institute-esque nonsensical term coined by creationists merely to designate those sciences which creationists have little, if any, complaints about. It does not exist in any meaningful way in the real academic world. It's a bit like saying "alternative medicine". There simply is no such animal. There is simply medicine that works, or medicine that DOESN'T work. (hint: Evolution is an integral part of modern science and, <gasp!> it works). The "Operational science" soundbite appears solely in arguments presented by creationists about whether "ideas" such as evolution and the Big Bang Theory are really "scientific." Again, shock horror, it turns out they are. Don't believe me? Try using this term in any (non-Oral Roberts) science University faculty and watch the look of disgust/amusement on the faces of the faculty members. 2. Thanks for the approval, so I can state unequivocally your creationist arguments are rubbish. To elaborate, what you don't understand is new information is regularly generated in evolution, whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication arises. I know that creationists love to use "Information Theory" in their dismissal of evolution, it's just that they just don't bother to learn the theory's key distinctions (eg. Shannon vs Kolmogorov Information), it's implications or the fact that it essentially destroys what little shred of "knowledge" (word used in it's loosest definition here) you have regarding the discipline. Dramatic examples of entirely new, unique traits arising through mutation have been observed in recent years, such as the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, which developed new enzymes to efficiently digest a material that never existed before the modern era. In fact, when an organism is considered together with the environment it evolved in, there is no need to account for the creation of information. The information in the genome forms a record of how it was possible to survive in a particular environment. It is not created, but rather gathered from the environment through research—by "trial and error", as mutating organisms either reproduce or fail. Additionally, you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension of one of the fundamental concepts of information theory: not all "bits" are of equal value. As for your "it is becoming apparent there is designed variability built into genomes" comment, excuse me while I throw up and then use the peer reviewed "Intelligent Design" scientific papers to clean up the mess. Oh, wait, there aren't any, better use the more practical and far more informative wad of toilet paper instead. <creationists please insert farcical and long since discredited bacterial flagellum ID argument here> 3.Sorry, but you seem to know even less about thermodynamics than evolution, if that's even possible. Pray tell, what are the other laws of Thermodynamics? Why do you guys always pick on the poor old 2nd law?! Urrgh, anyway, back to teaching 1st year Physics: This BS creationist claim is based on a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems, which do not exchange matter or energy with their surroundings. Organisms, in contrast, are open systems, as they constantly exchange energy and matter with their environment: for example animals eat food and excrete waste, and radiate and absorb heat. Similarly, the Earth absorbs energy from the Sun and emits energy back into space. The Sun-Earth-space system does not violate the second law, because the enormous increase in entropy due to the Sun and Earth radiating into space dwarfs the local decrease in entropy caused by the existence and evolution of self-organizing life. To further illustrate the inanity of your supposed "refutation", by your misunderstanding of the 2nd law, ALL of the following natural occurrences are violations: Water freezing into ice, fertilised eggs turning into babies, plants using sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen (Interestingly, you don't seem to invoke divine intervention to explain that process... Is it because the Bible doesn't mention photosynthesis?!?) Again, "science fail". Go back to school. No, not Sunday school - real school where you learn stuff. 4. Clearly you have NO idea what "falsifiable" means with respect to the Scientific Method. That's just plain embarrassing and I won't dignify that question with an answer. Please read some books. Any books. Except the Bible. 5. I have never said there is no purpose to life. That is a creationist logical fallacy with respect to athiesm. Life IS purpose and it's wondrous gift should be treasured for the simple reason it is the ONLY life we get (apologies to Hindus). Ironically, it's religious people that are most "me-centric" as their worldview tends to be "god loves me and listens to me and wants me to have a $15M flat in Central while kids in the Sudan starve to death". Even without fairies in my life, I think there is plenty of purpose - especially when it comes to those kids in Sudan. So, someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods has no "logical" reason to be moral hey? How about this: Let's say I subscribe to your fvcked-up model of reasoning for one day. I'll just walk about town looting, raping, pillaging etc... Because there is no god and damn the accountability. But WAIT, it appears that OTHERS seem to be upset with this behaviour, and suddenly I'm not really fitting into society very well. Why is this?? People don't seem to want to help me, or give me things like food or shelter, or even talk to me!?! But I'm a social animal, I need companionship, food, water, sometimes even physical assistance. Damn, there seem to be consequences to my actions. Most interesting of all, because I have a highly evolved sense of altruism and empathy (note: I am a normal person, NOT an airline manager) I also seem to get a guilty feeling, and I'm not even Catholic BUDDUM-TISH! Hmmmm, how strange. Could it be because I have an innate sense of what is right and wrong? Crazy stuff. Here's a real experiment you can try with a child 8yrs or older: tell them a runaway train is approaching a switch point where they're standing, on one track is a group of 4 people picnicking, on the other, is one person reading a book. They HAVE to choose which way to send the train, so either 4 people or 1 person will die as a result of their actions. Ask them who they choose and why. Now given them this scenario: 4 terminally ill people are in a doctor's waiting room, all just hours from certain death, each needs a different replacement organ (heart, lungs, liver, kidneys). In walks a perfectly healthy person - do you have this person killed to save the others? I will leave you to ponder the significance of this scenario and the inference of the consistent and known results. (want to know what happens when you ask "religious kids" this hypothetical and you assign a "opposing" religious affiliation to some of the characters?!?) Finally, GB your whole "creationist scientist" malarkey is crap. You know as well as I that there is NO "controversy" about evolution, despite what your Kentucky Creation Museum pamphlets might say. There are plenty of religious scientists who have deeply held faiths that still accept and embrace the reality of evolution, rather that be afraid of it like a frightened native seeing a plane for the first time. (Refer to Ken Miller, conservative Christian, author, biology expert and star witness against the Intelligent Design flunkies in the Dover/Kitzmiller trial.) You fail to see the irony in your reasoning - you dismiss science as unable to provide us any "ultimate meaning" whilst attempting to use it to buttress your (flawed) arguments against evolution. You turn science "off" & "on" when it suits, but always there is the metaphorical finger waggle of "don't trespass on religious territory, we don't want no stinkin' science here". However, I can imagine how quickly you would fall over yourself if science provided mitochondrial DNA evidence of Jesus' "virgin birth", and trumpet this scientific evidence to elevate the perceived importance of your religious doctrine. Unlike religion, science has no "authorities", only experts. You're neither, so whilst you're entitled to your worldview, just don't expect others to keep quiet when you use it to "increase the entropy of ignorance" when you deny reality. I'm done too - feel free to post again or pm me if you want the last word, promise I won't reply. PS. Still polluted outside. |
Superfrozo......you need a 'chill pill'. I wish you would replace your 'lengthy' dissertation with a quick explanation as to how life was originally brought into being. Oh...I forgot, your esteemed 'scientists' haven't quite figured that one out yet. Never mind. Far more important to wear out your computer keys with an online 'War and Peace' that basically ignores all the evidence out there that there is indeed an intelligent design to our existence. Atheism is a 'belief' system just like the ones Christians employ....only it's based on the complete ignorance of everything around you. I'll hold my beliefs, you can hold yours. The difference between them is that little word 'faith'.
|
A non-belief is a belief? What nonsense !
Your religion is like a penis. It’s fine to have one. It’s fine to be proud of it. But please don’t whip it out in public and start waving it around, And PLEASE don’t try to shove it down my children’s throats. If you want a belief, go for this - FSM is the one true faith. Be touched by His noodly appendage. Pollution in HKG are like earth quakes in Haiti -pat robinson would agree. All you sinners are responsible for this crap. |
Ramen! :ok:
|
Gigaboomer
I will only reply to post 14 as I don't have the time to address your other points. Your premise is that evolution cannot explain why humans are moral and just. That without another explanation we would have a breakdown in law and order: anarchy. I disagree. We evolved to be highly socialized creatures to survive. Only our intelligence and the ensuing development of tools, weapons and the creation of effective social patterns allowed us to survive against physically superior predators. The key words here are 'highly socialized groupings'. Anarchy by an individual or part of the group doesn't work as you need to cooperate to survive. Thus the anarchic element doesn't survive and pass their genes on. Ie Narural selection Further, this leads to humans naturally being moral. Now I hate using that word, because it is loaded with different meanings for different belief systems. But, experiments show that people will make moral decisions over immoral ones most of the time. This is because in our highly complex society, crime literally doesn't pay as any longer term strategy. So I disagree that society will fall apart without an explanation apart from evolution. Ps I thought naturalism was about magic stones and walking around in the nude :) |
As Super concluded, once again we see that there is no point discussing this with such ignorant, closed-minded, brainwashed people incapable of critical thinking, but my last reply to the nonsense above it to Air Profit:
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only the evolution of life, a fact against which there is no more respectable debate. As for the origin of life, you're right of course to say it is not fully explained yet. But, do your research and you will find that great leaps have recently been made by science in determining the possibilities that do not involve magic or supernatural, imaginary superheroes. Science seeks answers all the time, and without praying, scientists discover things and find explanations founded in observation, experimentation, reason and logic. Just a century ago or so, there were no jet airplanes, either, nor penicillin, the polio vaccine, men on the moon, KFC, Audis, Nikes, iPads, birth control pills, MRI machines, awareness of Pluto or countless other space objects, Space Shuttle flights, laser beams, LASIK surgery, email, velcro, heart bypass surgery, contact lenses, HIV, HIV medicine, air bags, television, helicopters, microwave popcorn, CPDLC, knowledge of quantum mechanics, pacemakers, nuclear submarines, weather radar...all the results of developing science rather than waiting for an imaginary friend to create them. They were always possible things, but not yet invented/discovered/explained by developing science. Atheism is the absence of belief in others' imaginary friends based completely on the knowledge of all that is in reality. You're an atheist about Zeus, I presume? And 1000's of other gods? Clearly, your misunderstanding of atheism is 180 degrees out from the reality. As you do, the deeply faithful believers who flew into the WTC also had their beliefs. Do you mind their beliefs? I do. Having insane, ridiculous, false, invalid, illogical, unreasonable, supernatural religious beliefs is NOT ok with those of us living in the real world, particularly in the face of modern knowledge, evidence and the scientific method. Your similar beliefs are equally problematic and revolting, with dire consequences as you brainwash yet another generation into ignoring progress. It doesn't matter if your imaginary friend makes you feel better: It's still not true no matter how much you believe it. If there is just one bit of evidence about your supernatural superhero (actual evidence, not the nonsense you perceive to be evidence) then you're the first to know about it, ever. Please share, anytime, with those who will quickly dismiss your "proof" as baloney, using logic, reason, evidence and facts. Just as "theory" means different things depending on its application in the English language, so does your invocation of "faith." Faith that the refrigerator light is off when the door is closed has nothing to do with the supernatural-style ignorance of overwhelming evidence and the lack of opposing evidence, testable and repeatable experimentation, illogical statements and submission to/adoration of/fascination with/reliance upon your own personal favourite imaginary friend. It's just so shocking to know that otherwise intelligent people just cannot get past this imaginary friend of theirs, despite easily getting past 1000's and 1000's of others' imaginary friends that have come and gone like the wind over the last few 1000 years....as yours will to future generations with better education, more information and yet more answers to today's scientific mysteries. You got past Santa, right? Have a nice day! And when the pollutions makes you sick, I am sure you will rely upon science to help you out with that, rather than talk into the air to your imaginary friend in search of assistance...or maybe not! :ugh: |
Used to live in HKG and woke every morning sneezing and coughing, now live in the UK and still wake up every morning sneezing......
....except my snot-rag isn't full of yellow/brown heavy-metal laden crusties, it's just hayfever! And that's not going to kill me.... |
N1,
Exactly right mate, exactly right!! We're on our way out too. Box |
Yup... Movers picked up our goods 2 days ago.
Family leaves tomorrow. Anyone who keeps kids in Hong Kong should be charged with abuse. You may not like it, but its true. All you're doing is harming them for a little bit of Swire gold. Grow a pair and protect your family. |
When are the basing bids opening up again so I can leave?
|
Skillet and Superfrozo,
I know I said I was done but, Superfrozo at least despite the mocking and ridicule, has actually come up with some debatable points so let me at least respond. To all those who simply want to discuss the weather please accept my apologies. It never ceases to amaze me the zeal with which some atheists defend their religious ideas about where we came from and why we are here. It would make the most evangelical Christian proud! So lets get started: 1. Biological Evolution and Information Theory. Ok so Skillet says mutations don’t create new information but Superfrozo claims they do, so which is it? If they don’t Skillet, then what process does? You both say that evolution has been observed. The definition of evolution is very important here, if you are referring to genetic changes within a population over time then I would agree, that is in fact observed, but if you mean humans evolving from simple life forms then I would say this has definitely not been observed. Just because it supposedly happens over great periods of time does not remove the burden of proof for evolutionists. Every case studied so far, admittedly with the exception of the bacteria and nylon case (I will address that in a second), has been the result of functionality breaking in the cell. While this may infer a survival advantage in a given environment (antibiotics for example) the cell is less able to survive in the wild as functionality it requires is missing so is less fit. Now for the bacteria and nylon case, this is an example of what I referred to in a previous post, where there seems to be evidence of some mechanism that drives this adaptability. I’m certainly no expert but from what I’ve read there are multiple lines of evidence pointing in this direction, for example, the new genes are found in a very specific area of the genome which is highly unlikely if they were the result of random chance and secondly the transposable elements are unaffected so again it is highly unlikely these new genes would evolve and leave these areas alone. It is very telling that one of the original evolutionist researchers said “These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes”. It is becoming clear this change is a designed process to allow the bacterium to adapt to different food sources. Superfrozo, I readily admit I’m no expert in Information theory but creationists have certainly addressed it comprehensively so asserting otherwise with no evidence is really nothing more than mud slinging. Your statement about information coming from the environment and hence ‘no need to account for the creation of information’ is completely nonsensical and simply an attempt to avoid the obvious problem. For a ‘trial and error’ scenario you talk about to work, you need new information to have the trial! 2. The Second law of Thermodynamics You clearly have no idea what the crux of the creationist argument is as it has nothing to do with open and closed systems. No one is going to argue that the earth is an open system, or that sometimes local decreases in entropy can occur within appropriate increases elsewhere, the problem for evolution is that, put simply, living organisms are unable to use all this energy without complex systems in place. This is the point I was making about standing in the sun. Living things, like plants and animals, need both a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity and a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy. So the idea that life could arise, decrease in entropy, without these systems in place clearly violates the second law. Incidentally open systems are also prone to increasing entropy as the evolutionist scientist Dr John Ross of Harvard University states: ‘…*there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.*…* There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself’. 3. Worldview and the Naturalism paradigm Central to this debate is one’s worldview, put another way there is no such thing as an unbiased observer, and this includes mainstream scientists. Creationists are not implying some huge conspiracy, but simply a situation where all current science, in fact all education, is taught with naturalism as established fact, so it is not surprising when the vast majority believe in naturalism. But this does not make it right, it’s a good thing Galileo didn’t just go along with the science of his day or still may think the sun revolves around the earth! Peer review is subject to the exact same problem, good valid creationist research is rejected not because of problems with the science but simply because of the conclusions drawn. I guess if you can’t refute it, it’s best to just ignore it! Like it or not there are many real scientists who hold to a biblical creationist explanation of origins, you can’t just dismiss them because you don’t like the message. If your game have a look at Creation scientists, yes I know it’s a creationist site but if you reject it simply because of that you have proven my point. Ultimately guys this is not about the science but about us not wanting to be accountable to our creator. Superfrozo, with respect you lose all credibility with your relativistic drivel about purpose. Surely you would know the whole philosophy behind Darwinian evolution is undirected natural processes, what did Dawkins say, ‘....blind pitiless indifference’? That’s it for me, to be honest I have better things to do so good luck guys and God bless. |
I didn't waste my time reading the nonsense post above, already knowing most of these fallacies have surely been used, as always. If it were any other delusion, this guy would be in a hospital! Somehow, we still tolerate this god delusion and all the lies that come with it:
Top 25 Creationist Fallacies 1: Foundational Bias: In Foundational Bias, you admit bias towards a certain conclusion before making an argument. Foundational bias is not based on evidence or logic, but it is instead based upon personal preference and belief. Therefore, foundational bias opens the door to all logical fallacies. 2: The Straw Man Argument: A straw man argument is made when you construct a misrepresentation or oversimplification of your opponent's position. You then easily refute your own constructed straw man, but you have not responded to the substance of your opponent's argument. 3: Hasty Generalization: A hasty generalization attempts to reach beyond its grasp and draw major conclusions from a minor subset of data. Great claims necessitate great evidence. Creationist claims often make hasty generalizations, sometimes from a single case. 4: Argument from Authority: An argument from authority involves setting up an expert on a subject. The fallacy is not made in merely having an expert, but instead in using their "authority" to exempt their statements from criticism and to validate their claims. 5: The Ad Hominem Argument: An ad hominem argument consists of issuing an attack against the person making an argument instead of addressing the substance of the argument itself. It is the opposite of an argument from authority. 6: Appeal to the Majority: An appeal to the majority, a.k.a. an ad populum argument, is made when an argument is asserted to be true because the majority of people believe it to be true. This is similar to an argument from authority. The fallacy is in assuming people's belief in a proposition somehow validates it. Truth exists independently of whether you believe it or not. 7: Quote Mining: Quote mining is the abhorrent practice of searching through large volumes of literature or spoken word to "mine out" any quotes from opponents that may seemingly support your position. In most cases, the quote is clearly taken out of context in a deliberately planned campaign of disinformation. 8: Man-on-the-Street Interview: A man-on-the-street interview is a combination of an appeal to the majority and quote mining. It employs several logical fallacies, and, frankly, the opinion or knowledge of a person randomly met on the street (internet) has absolutely nothing to do with rational debate. 9: Non Sequitur: Meaning literally "does not follow." A non sequitur is formally defined as any conclusion that does not follow from the premise(s). We us non sequitur to specifically refer to arguments that do not follow from any logical train of thought. Often no real connection exists from these non sequiturs to any version of reality. 10: Red Herring: A red herring is not so much a logical fallacy as a distraction technique. In response to an opponent's position, an irrelevant point is made. It can even be a valid point, but does nothing to address the issue. 11: Argument from Personal Incredulity: In this fallacy, one argues that because they do not personally find a premise to be likely or believable, it cannot be true, regardless of evidence. The fallacy lies in presenting one's beliefs about a proposition as evidence. (The biggest creationist fallacy for design and against evolution) 12: Argument from Ignorance: In this fallacy, an appeal to ignorance is made as one argues either that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true. The "god of the gaps" argument usually begins with an appeal to ignorance. 13: Violation of the Philosophy of Science: The most powerful tool to obtain truth about the natural world is the scientific method. However, science cannot be used to explain the truly supernatural. Whether or not you believe the supernatural exists: "Science makes no comment on the supernatural." 14: Equivocation: An equivocation is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning. In creationism arguments, the most common equivocation is the word "theory." In science, theory means "a logically coherent model well-supported by evidence." In popular usage, the definition of theory is closer to conjecture or opinion. Do not confuse the two. 15: False Dichotomy: In a False Dichotomy, two mutually exclusive options are set up as the only possible choices. Therefore, if one is true, the other must be untrue. The fallacy is that the options may not be mutually exclusive (or even related) and that other choices may exist. 16: Begging the Question: Also known as Circular Reasoning, Begging the Question is a fallacy where your conclusion is implicitly or explicitly assumed in your premise. Therefore, the illusion of logic is presented when, in fact, no proof has been made. (Think AFadly's post at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=83.0 a.k.a. The kalam Cosmological Argument.) 17: Tautology: A specialized form of Begging the Question, a tautology occurs when the premise and conclusion of an argument are identical. While a tautology (A = A) is true and the repeated statement may also be true, a tautology proves nothing outside of itself. 18: False Premise: In a false premise fallacy, the conclusion of an argument is invalidated by an incorrect assumption in one of the premises. You can't build a house on a poor foundation. Foundational bias and ad hoc reasoning usually have a false premise at their base. 19: Ad Hoc Reasoning: Ad hoc reasoning (meaning "for this purpose") is done to salvage an argument that rests upon a shaky foundation. Ad hoc reasoning attempts to address unstable or invalid portions of the failed argument. It is often used to avoid reevaluation of an argument's validity. 20: Slippery Slope: A slippery slope argument states that accepting a certain argument will lead to a chain of events that culminate in an undesirable outcome. The validity of the argument is not addressed, only the imagined outcome. 21: Correlation Implies Causation: This fallacy states that because two events are correlated, there exists a cause and effect relationship. The two variables may be caused by a third variable or may be completely unrelated. An example of this fallacy is: "Atmospheric co2 and crime levels have both risen since 1950. Therefore, co2 causes crime." 22: Creative Math: Probability arguments employed by creationists often employ creative math, where they make it seem as if the odds of something occurring without creation are incredibly remote. This is essentially an elaborate straw man argument. 23: Moving the Goalposts: When the rules to obtain satisfactory completion of a goal are changed just as they are about to be attained, it is referred to as "moving the goalposts." The trick is that you can never meet the goal when the goalposts are continuously moved. 24: Just Plain Nonsense: Sometimes the failure in logic defies easy explanation. Examples in this category usually require a massive disconnect from reality, and the result is just plain nonsense. 25: Outright Lie: Not so much a logical fallacy, the outright lie is simply deception in its purest form. Truth is discarded as superfluous in this type of creationist argument. |
You guys really need to move, the pollution is making you a little crazy :}
Back on topic, pollution >1,000,000 ppl today, the WHO limit is 60,000 I'll let the creationists and scientists do the math ;) It is heartening to hear guys leaving :ok: |
Iron Skillet,
I guess we have finally found your Achilles heal. Like you, I did not read all the mumbo jumbo above, and I am not interested in a big argument on this topic. However, evolutionists have always (and probably always will) fail to come up with a credible theory for the origin of the universe and life within it. It can be argued that it takes a lot more faith to believe humans evolved from cosmic goo than were created by God. CXorcist |
And on the Eighth Day, God created....the friggin' HK pollution.
There is apparently some archeological evidence to prove that Jesus did walk on water. Apparently this was easy to do as the water was filled with debris from weekend barbecues. And there endeth the sermon. Please back to topic. |
cxorcist,
Evolution is about change over time, not the origin of life, but certainly does describe and prove what happens to life within the Universe. Since there is zero evidence that any "god" created anything, the only thing left is to attribute belief in this supernatural to "faith." This of course has nothing to do with the evidence for evolution, or on a related matter, the origin of life. (Creationist fallacies used by cxorcist: # 1, 2, 3,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25 from the list above.) Atoms do not organize themselves randomly, but according to their properties. Same with molecules. Same with simple self-replicating molecules. Same with complex self-replicating molecules. And so on. If you spent some time learning about what has been observed, experimented, predicted and proven about this, you would better understand that science is explaining the origin of life rather than giving up and simply saying it was magic/supernatural/god did it. Once again, if a creator is needed to get the ball rolling, then who created the creator? Just because you don't understand something does not mean your preferred god did it. Since you don't seem to have studied much science, did you also learn nothing from history? Or did you already forget about all the other gods, word of god books, creation stories, etc., that have come and gone? :ugh: Thank god for the pollution! (Oh, just toss that in with all the other stuff blamed on some guy eating the forbidden fruit, great story! :ugh:) |
Skillet, it has something to with turtles stacked upon each other! Obviously you didn't pay attention in geology class.
|
Unclear, but I think you're referring to a piece of evidence. Yes, I was listening in Geology.
|
Good post Iron, it pretty much describes every weakness in any cult's argument defending their fantasy stories. The biggest loophole in their rationale being #1 from your post:
1: Foundational Bias: In Foundational Bias, you admit bias towards a certain conclusion before making an argument. Foundational bias is not based on evidence or logic, but it is instead based upon personal preference and belief. Therefore, foundational bias opens the door to all logical fallacies. These cult followers are shackled by the fact that they already claim to know the answer. By restricting their arguments in such a way they are left to deal with the inconsistencies that are pretty much undisputed and chip away at their illogical house of cards. I must admit, they have quite an imagination to come up with some of their theories, many based on science that a few years earlier they didn't even agree with but has become so mainstream they now can not ignore. Imagine two investigators trying to solve a plane crash. One believes in finding the evidence to know why the airplane crashed. Everyday he finds clues which he uses to put the puzzle together. If he never solves the puzzle, then he says there is not enough evidence to ascertain what happened. The other investigator believes he knows what happened but has to find evidence to prove his vision and at the same time ignore any evidence which proves him wrong, regardless of how logical and undisputed such findings might be. It is inevitable for this investigator to resort to bending and stretching the truth (ie, lying) in order to continue with his position. It would be a huge loss of face and income if he were wrong, making it all the more desperate of an attempt. :ugh: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:45. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.