Jump to content

COVID 19 GLOBAL


grayray

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Rompho Ray said:

I hardly see either group "dangerous" in that case.  Considering the outlandish propaganda and misinformation our students are already being subjected to, a teacher challenging the orthodoxy on either of these topics would be harmless by comparison.  

BTW, many consider "evolution" an unproven hypothesis for various reasons.  I find some of their arguments intriguing, and I hold a healthy skepticism toward any orthodoxy whose proponents want to shut down all debate about it, including evolution.

And if flat-earther Mike Hughes's followers tried to emulate him?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prestigious scientific panel tells White House coronavirus won't go away with warmer weather

"There is some evidence to suggest that [coronavirus] may transmit less efficiently in environments with higher ambient temperature and humidity; however, given the lack of host immunity globally, this reduction in transmission efficiency may not lead to a significant reduction in disease spread without the concomitant adoption of major public health interventions," according to the letter.
    The letter noted, for example, that a study of the outbreak in China showed that even under maximum temperature and humidity conditions, the virus spread "exponentially," with every infected person spreading it to nearly two other people on average.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, fygjam said:

    And if flat-earther Mike Hughes's followers tried to emulate him?

     

    Mike Hughes was not a flat earther he was just a media darling jack-ass....

    Real flat earthers never get media attention like Mike Hughes....

     

     

    Edited by fforest
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 hours ago, Rompho Ray said:

    Out of curiosity, who are flat-earthers and creationists dangerous to exactly?

    Creationists have the potential to become dangerous to all of us because their actions are guided by a belief in divine revelation rather than science and secular law. I oppose them for the same reason I oppose Islamists who want to introduce sharia law in Western democracies or fundamentalist Christians who seek to limit abortion or teach religious doctrine in public schools under the  guise of history.

    As proposed  by the Young Earth creationists, "intelligent design"  is not an alternative theory to evolution but a religious EXPLANATION based on the monotheistic Abrahamic account found in Genesis.

    By definition, intellient design is not a theory that can be tested and verified empirically.  It rests entirely on the revealed word of the Bible.  To propose it as a scientific theory is a fraud and as religion, it should not be taught in public schools in the U.S.  That's also what U.S. courts have held.

    I regard the flat earth "theory" as a literal joke, a pisstake on established science meant as satire.  I don't think the flat-earthers harm anyone.

    Evil

    Edited by Evil Penevil
    • Like 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    21 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

    I regard the flat earth "theory" as a literal joke, a pisstake on established science meant as satire.  I don't think they harm anyone.

    Evil

    I doubt I would want to fly in an aircraft where the navigation system had been designed by a flat-earther.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, fygjam said:

    I doubt I would want to fly in an aircraft where the navigation system had been designed by a flat-earther.

    I don't think many flat-earthers are designing aircraft navigation systems.  I doubt anyone who actually  accepts the flat-earth theory would have acquired the scientific background needed to design such systems.

    Many, many years ago when I was at university, we had a Flat Earth Society  group on campus. It was a social club for majors in hard sciences, engineering and mathematics who were the geeks and nerds of that time. They called it the Flat Earth Society to show they had a sense of humor even if they were lacking in most social skills and were "out of it" by contemporary standards.

    Evil

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 4/9/2020 at 7:12 PM, Evil Penevil said:

    Creationists have the potential to become dangerous to all of us because their actions are guided by a belief in divine revelation rather than science and secular law. I oppose them for the same reason I oppose Islamists who want to introduce sharia law in Western democracies or fundamentalist Christians who seek to limit abortion or teach religious doctrine in public schools under the  guise of science.

    As proposed  by the Young Earth creationists, "intelligent design"  is not an alternative theory to evolution but a religious EXPLANATION based on the monotheistic Abrahamic account found in Genesis.

    By definition, intellient design is not a theory that can be tested and verified emphatically.  It rests entirely on the revealed word of the Bible.  To propose it as a scientific theory is a fraud and as religion, it should not be taught in public schools in the U.S.  That's also what U.S. courts have held.

    I regard the flat earth "theory" as a literal joke, a pisstake on established science meant as satire.  I don't think they harm anyone.

    Evil

    ......

     

    Edited by fforest
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    36 minutes ago, fforest said:

    Well I thought the flat earth was the stupidest thing in the world till I looked into it..They raised some valid questions...Judgment should be reserved until something has been given a solid look over......

     

    No they didn't ..... 

    • Haha 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    17 minutes ago, dcfc2007 said:

    I always knew you were a troglodyte.

    Lol.

    😂

    Troglodytes invented social isolation!

    Definition of troglodyte

    1: a member of any of various peoples (as in antiquity) who lived or were reputed to live chiefly in caves

    2: a person characterized by reclusive habits or outmoded or reactionary attitudes

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troglodyte

     

     

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    21 minutes ago, fygjam said:

    Troglodytes invented social isolation!

    Definition of troglodyte

    1: a member of any of various peoples (as in antiquity) who lived or were reputed to live chiefly in caves

    2: a person characterized by reclusive habits or outmoded or reactionary attitudes

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troglodyte

     

     

    Pretty good selection @Krapow and Fygjam .... lol

    Now after I think about it a little ... I am a pretty reclusive dude ....

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

    Creationists have the potential to become dangerous to all of us because their actions are guided by a belief in divine revelation rather than science and secular law.

    For most of history there has been little to no reason to believe that either had a better track record, especially because up to recently they were intertwined.  Even when they separated, "science" brought us things like bloodletting and white supremacy/eugenics up to very recently.

    More recently, science has proven that it's best at disproving its own past conclusions.  New instruments and theories replace the old ones, ideas get refined, explanations get tweaked, and books get rewritten, but actual innovations over the breakthroughs that happened in the 1890s and 1950s are rare.  Nowadays, most improvements in technology happen because computers are getting faster and better, not because the science is any better.

    However, we now see certain areas of science being put off-limits to question, a great example of this being The Great Global Warming Hoax™.  This is nothing but people who believe scientists instead of traditional religions creating new religions that are centered on things people think they can observe.  A faithless faith.  The same person who doesn't believe in miracles or the moon landing believes he's looking at a picture of a molecule without hesitation, if a "scientist" tells him it is so.

    Creationists simply say that scientists are getting closer and closer looks at what God created.  I find that proposition, and the surrounding argumentation intriguing.  I've long argued that science can't disprove God any more than religion can disprove science.  That's because, despite the efforts to separate them, all science boils down to is observing, and cataloging the world as it is.  As God created it, the creationists would say.

    5 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

    I oppose them for the same reason I oppose Islamists who want to introduce sharia law in Western democracies or fundamentalist Christians who seek to limit abortion or teach religious doctrine in public schools under the  guise of history.

    Few if any creationists in 2020 want anything remotely like this (barring abortion, for which no rational argument exists that doesn't at the end of the day rest on justifying the killing of inconvenient people, IMO of course).  Mostly, they simply want to teach their children the truth as they see it, and they want secular teaching to exist next to religious doctrine, rather than somehow substituting for it.  

    You feel your children should have the right to learn history.  They feel their children should have the right to learn the history of the people they think are significant.  Secularists argue that Jesus existed too long ago for reliable records to exist, yet have no trouble taking the existence of Archimedes as unassailable fact, despite very little actual data on him existing, except things attributed to him.  Like Jesus.

    I am a computer engineer who works in a field requiring actively using electrical theory, mechanical theory, metallurgy, and other science-based technologies.  Yet, I have room in my belief system for a God who operates outside of the constraints of the physical universe.  And, given the recent discoveries in things like quantum computing, which rely on inexplicable things like "quantum entanglement" (distant, seemingly disconnected particles being entangled such that influencing one can instantaneously influence the other), I don't see the potential for science to disprove God getting any closer.  At least personally.

    Edited by Rompho Ray
    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 hours ago, fygjam said:

    I doubt I would want to fly in an aircraft where the navigation system had been designed by a flat-earther.

    IIUC, a flat-earther would design a navigation system taking the aberrations of the spherical earth into consideration but would likely attribute those aberrations to something other than a spherical earth.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 hours ago, forcebwithu said:

    And this back forth has what to do with COVID 19 GLOBAL (non Thailand) Posts, the title of this topic BTW.

    Seems to me the philosophical examination of whether and why we should believe the "scientists" whose predictions have resulted in half the earth being placed under house arrest is appropriate.  How much better have the results of these wildly inaccurate models been than reading tea leaves or chicken bones, or praying for divine guidance?

    So far, even the stock market has had a better track record than the "scientists".

    Edited by Rompho Ray
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...