search results matching tag: greeting

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (185)     Sift Talk (35)     Blogs (25)     Comments (500)   

entr0py (Member Profile)

enoch (Member Profile)

berticus (Member Profile)

Januari (Member Profile)

enoch (Member Profile)

eric3579 (Member Profile)

enoch (Member Profile)

eric3579 (Member Profile)

Conservative Christian mom attempts to disprove evolution

shinyblurry says...

Hey robbersdog49, thanks for the level headed reply. I'll address your comments in a few pieces here:

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things. Regardless of how you believe the first life came about we do know from the fossil record and evidence about the way the environment and climate changed on earth in those early millennia that the first life was simple single cell organisms.

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it. The Cambrian explosion for example, where basically every type of animal body plan comes into existence at around the same time, contradicts the idea that these things happened gradually over long periods of time. In fact, a new theory was invented called "punctuated equilibrium" which says that the reason we aren't finding the transitional fossils is that the changes happen too quickly to be found in the fossil record. Instead of a theory based on the evidence, we have a theory to explain away the lack of evidence.

Evolution is the process which turned these very simple life forms into the complex forms you see all around you today. It's an ongoing process and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming. The reason we have hundreds of different breeds of dogs is because of micro evolution. Darwin discovered this and all the credit should go to him, but where the leap of faith took place was when he supposed that because we see changes within species, that therefore all life evolved from a common ancestor. This claim is not substantiated scientifically. You cannot see macro evolution taking place anywhere in the world, and you cannot find the transitional fossils to say it ever took place. You cannot test it in a laboratory, it is a historical claim based on weak circumstantial evidence.

Science doesn't know exactly how life first came about. It doesn't claim to. We know that it did because we're here, but how? Not sure. But that's not a problem, science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is a process we use to find out about the world around us. It's not a book with all the answers.

Science is all about what we don't know. It's a process of discovery, and you can't discover something you already know. Religious people like to show any gap in the knowledge of scientists as showing they are frauds, or know nothing and that this means their own views must be true. That's just a stupid logical fallacy. Just because no one else has the answer doesn't mean you can just claim your version must be correct.

Science not being able to tell us how life started has no effect on the validity of the statement 'God did it'.


The God of the gaps fallacy is simply a red herring in these conversations. I don't purport to say that because science can't explain something, that means God did it. Science is all about the principle of parsimony; what theory has the best explanatory power. I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained. I think the evidence we do understand, in physics, biology, cosmology and information theory overwhelmingly points to design for many good reasons that have nothing to do with the God of the gaps fallacy.

There is also it seems a point of pride for those who think the best position is to say "I don't know", and accusing anyone who thinks they do know as being wrong headed, arrogant, or whatever. It's a very curious position to take because there are plenty of things we can know. No one is going to take the position that if you say the answer to 2 + 2 is 4 and you deny that any other answer is valid, you are arrogant or using fallacious reasoning. Yet, it is arrogrant and fallacious to those who think that science is the sole arbitor of truth when someone who believes in God points to a Creator as the best explanation. They think that because they believe no one else could know the answer except through scientific discovery. You have to realize that is a faith based claim and not an evidence based claim. You think that way when you place your faith in science as what is going to give you the correct answers about how and why you are here. I like these quotes for Robert Jastrow, who was an Astronomer and physicist:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law."

As for the age of the earth, there's a huge amount of evidence which says it's about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That's plenty of time for evolution to take us from simple single cell life to the complex animals we've become today.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth. That video I provided shows the evidences I am talking about.

robbersdog49 said:

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things.

enoch (Member Profile)

10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman

newtboy says...

What about the man who saw that 'body language' as her having a bad day and told her to smile? To me, that's not harassment in the least, (well, honestly, most of this isn't, but I'm a friendly guy who does greet people, of both sexes, in passing...but then I live in the boonies, not NY) it's seeing a person having a bad day and making an attempt (although a pretty sad one) to make them smile, no?
I think if this kind of thing feels like sexual harassment to some, they really should not live in a large city where inappropriate behavior is the norm.

KimzSendai said:

Would he say the same thing on a busy street to a man waking by with no interest in him?

If the answer is 'YES' then a) I can't believe he's not hoarse given the number of people one passes in a given day in NYC and b)it's not an example of gender-specific inappropriateness... but c) it's still anti-social because the body language (which men read all the time) clearly indicates a lack of interest in being stopped. These are the streets of a subdivision or Iowa City down town (don't get me wrong, I love Iowa City). Most people in New York to not greet random strangers in the street.

The exception to this is people whose jobs require approaching strangers - you know beggars, street vendors, promoters, and those guys who solicit for charity. Please notice that no one who might fall into those categories were included in the video, despite the fact that in NYC she definitely walked past all 3.

If the answer is 'NO' (IE he didn't 'greet' the disinterested camera man who walked by first but did 'greet' the disinterested woman) then the comment is both anti-social AND gender targeted. He's targeting a woman he doesn't know, when every ounce of her body language is saying that she doesn't want to be bothered. That's not friendly, that's more likely a attempt (conscious or subconscious) to exercise power over the woman walking by.

10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman

KimzSendai says...

Would he say the same thing on a busy street to a man waking by with no interest in him?

If the answer is 'YES' then a) I can't believe he's not hoarse given the number of people one passes in a given day in NYC and b)it's not an example of gender-specific inappropriateness... but c) it's still anti-social because the body language (which men read all the time) clearly indicates a lack of interest in being stopped. These are the streets of a subdivision or Iowa City down town (don't get me wrong, I love Iowa City). Most people in New York to not greet random strangers in the street.

The exception to this is people whose jobs require approaching strangers - you know beggars, street vendors, promoters, and those guys who solicit for charity. Please notice that no one who might fall into those categories were included in the video, despite the fact that in NYC she definitely walked past all 3.

If the answer is 'NO' (IE he didn't 'greet' the disinterested camera man who walked by first but did 'greet' the disinterested woman) then the comment is both anti-social AND gender targeted. He's targeting a woman he doesn't know, when every ounce of her body language is saying that she doesn't want to be bothered. That's not friendly, that's more likely a attempt (conscious or subconscious) to exercise power over the woman walking by.

cason said:

Okay.. I get the majority of these, but is "good morning," "how are you," and "have a nice evening" harassment now too?

dannym3141 (Member Profile)

enoch says...

so i woke up this morning,grabbed my coffee and started my routine of seeing whats happening on the sift to be greeted by your comment.

thank you my friend.
it brought a smile to my face.
and brought me back to earth with a giant dose of getoveryourself.
my comment had a certain..shrillness... that,while unintended,was very evident with a reread.

i would love the assistance to get to the truth of the matter.i would not even know where to start.the articles i found for/against seemed to be a tug of war between vegans and big monied interests.

i think everyone here would benefit from your talents.

i guess i just find it ironic that one video has 24 votes,while mine is left floundering,yet both are basically saying the same thing.

grant you,the related video if far more entertaining.

anyways,thank you for bringing me down to earth my friend.
/tips coffee
and have a great morning! (or afternoon/evening)

Crow Insults Man

mystiq says...

If I didn't know better, that crow had a few people say that to him, and it just repeated as a greeting. I especially like how its feathers puff up when he says it.

That said, crows are supposed to be quite intelligent.

Confident motorcyclist escapes in front of police motorcycle

sillma says...

The kid was driving a moped, which is legally allowed to go around 28mph. I suspect he's stopping the kid to check if the moped's been tuned(which it obviously has).

Transcript:
(I'll skip the repeated greetings)
Cop:
"From the police, good day. Follow that moped."
Kid:
"ok." proceeds to try to run away like the tard he is.

after the chase:
Cop:
"Get on the ground!"
Kid:
"fuuuu"
Cop:
"God damn this stuff, these *unclear* can't god damn keep upright. They don't know how to drive, fuck. Are you all...are you really that fucking poor at driving? Turn that camera off --"



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon