shrug " Towards the end of the debate, Ham admitted that nothing would change his mind concerning his views on creationism, whereas Nye acknowledged that, if enough convincing evidence were presented to him, he would change his mind immediately."
So believe in God or believe in creationism? As I said not an accurate description.
his belief system it is one and the same. he’s not a deist like the founders were.
There are many who believe in God but have different views on creationism thus changing your post changes your point and original comment. But, now I’m doing what i wasn’t going too.
1 Like
I’ll half agree with you. Instead of god it was creationism by god. so nothing would change his ideas of everything created by god, but that is the base of his beliefs in that a god did it all.
Correct, because he refutes the idea that there is no evidence of a creator thus his answer.
1 Like
Read about the Moral Foundation Theory, process how it is used to foster the “us versus them” division, and then go back and listen to speeches and read articles to see its application. It’s freaking pathetic, and every step of it is used throughout media and politics to promote divisiveness and hatred between sides of society.
2 Likes
and then of course after all this discussion this pops up on my facebook feed (because they’re dirty spies) but it does agree with my sentiment
A system in which one group is free to say anything they want, while everyone else is free to shut up or else, might just be tyrannical.
A system that allows one group to riot, burn, and loot, from coast to coast, while a truly “mostly peaceful” protest by another group, is called an insurrection, might be.
3 Likes
while I agree with those examples as stated, you also should see how large those riots/burns/etc were with peaceful protests before smaller groups started the damage and a lot of those smaller groups were arrested as well IIRC. And if you’ve been watching the jan 6th investigations, it was a textbook attempted insurrection using the mostly peaceful protest as a cover. I guess you could say both of your examples are basically the same thing, illegal activities using legal protests as cover. And I have no problem jailing everyone responsible in both.
The same smaller group! There’s video evidence.
But, we only look at certain evidence.
1 Like
agreed, the same smaller group in both examples, so you are correct. I’m not sure what certain evidence you’re pointing at. In both examples there have been dozens if not hundreds of arrests. There information released that show that the jan 6th arrests were much more lenient than the floyd riots/protests. I’m not sure what you’re after here but both were illegal and both are being punished.
I agree with this to an extent. The problem is evidence can be interpreted different ways in many cases. Here’s an example of what I mean… plenty of evidence to show OJ killed his wife and her boyfriend, but he was innocent according to the jury.
Plenty of people have been put in jail for criimes they didn’t commit based on the evidence at the time and then years later DNA evidence proved they were innocent all along. This is quite common.
Another issue is to find quality evidence it usually takes a lot of time and research, whereas many people just believe whatever the TV or news anchor tells them, this is very dangerous. I have many friends and co-workers like this. You can show them evidence, put the paper in their hands and they will say that’s not what I saw on the news. It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled in many cases.
oh ya I get it. I mean you can’t just throw away all evidence when it is presented, but you can ‘trust but verify’. That’s where the evidence that doesn’t leave a lot of room for interpretation can be really important. You have someone say one thing in public, but then say something completely different in court under oath you can probably take a lot of what they say in public with a grain of salt, it’s up to them to prove they can be truthful after that.
Science isn’t 100%, but it is constantly trying to prove that it is wrong and correct for that. You eventually get something close to verified over time. Trust, but verify. A lot of people just hear things that agree with their world view and it’s just Trust, no need to verify.
Ideally it would work like that. Science is meant to be questioned, that’s literally part of the scientific method. One of the main issues with the accuracy of science is the funding behind it though. Always follow the money. I can’t get into too much detail with going past den rules, but I think you will get my point here.
oh no I absolutely get it. Money is the driver of a bunch of evil, science, politics, etc. I’m a big fan of the warning from eisenhower involving the MIC and basically how we just ignored it and…yeah.
1 Like
Almost all opinions are backed by evidence. Taht’s why they exist. People attach meaning to past events and project the meaning from the past “Proof/evidence” into the future. Truths can come from different layers and levels, and have different intensities to them.
I am slightly colored blind, and the NYG helmets look right down the middle of the line PURPLE to me. So I used to hear Chris Bermen ranting about the G-Men" being “The men in blue.” To me, that would be false…and hard to prove otherwise…until I can see the entire rest of the world disagreeing with me. LOL
YES!
Cheers…to those who can change their mind, when presented with information that contradicts their beliefs. Truthfully, most can’t.
2 Likes
For sure. PsyOps are a VERY real thing. It’s everywhere and super-easy to see. Divide us to control us. It’s been done for soooo long. The “news” is almost comedic.
2 Likes
I talked to John … it’s Grewden
1 Like
I am Grewt
2 Likes