Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

My first New Earther!


DirtyDocMartens

Recommended Posts

Just now, Piney said:

I give them a outrageously high quote. :)

Trouble with that, it creates the impression you are too costly to hire, and the aggrieved recipient will yell it from the rooftops. Generally speaking, people should be free from being forced to deal with people they feel are likely to be a problem, which is admittedly different to the gay wedding cake case, but there are many scenarios I can think of, that people may not want to be involved in, like say you are an anti-gambling inclined signwriter who doesn't want to create signage for a pokies parlour, encouraging people to do what you think is harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

TTBOMK, the cake-shop couldn't refuse the custom of a same-sex couple.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, in Australia, a shop owner must serve everyone, regardless of he shop owners religious beliefs?

That sounds like a very progressive government you have there!

If it wasn't that I consider Australia to be gods bio-weapons lab, I might consider moving there. :)

Y'all have waaaaaay too many critters that are lethal to human life for my taste. :)

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Trouble with that, it creates the impression you are too costly to hire, and the aggrieved recipient will yell it from the rooftops. Generally speaking, people should be free from being forced to deal with people they feel are likely to be a problem, which is admittedly different to the gay wedding cake case, but there are many scenarios I can think of, that people may not want to be involved in, like say you are an anti-gambling inclined signwriter who doesn't want to create signage for a pokies parlour, encouraging people to do what you think is harmful.

I'm anti-drugs and gambling but I still carved those themes for customers. Pot leafs and poker cards.  Most people know I base my prices on the person and I've made chainsaw carvings for poor people for free.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

 I consider Australia to be gods bio-weapons lab,

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I'm not sure if we are speaking past each other, or if I'm being dense. 

What do you mean, when you say "tarnish their brand"?

And could you illustrate what you mean when you say 'anti-social'? And exactly what crimes are you referring to?

Brand is the perception of an entity by another.

Anti-social is me being laconic (lazy) in referring to the behaviour you first asserted could derive from YEC - particularly if it affects a person, natural or otherwise, in a material way; ie, discrimination, vandalism, violence, etc.

Edited by Golden Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Generally speaking, people should be free from being forced to deal with people they feel are likely to be a problem, which is admittedly different to the gay wedding cake case, but there are many scenarios I can think of, that people may not want to be involved in, like say you are an anti-gambling inclined signwriter who doesn't want to create signage for a pokies parlour, encouraging people to do what you think is harmful.

Isn't that the crux of the issue though? YOU are in a business, but decide whether someone is 'worthy' of your service, based on your personal beliefs?

Once upon a time, I was a clerk in a 24 hour convenience store. On October 30th (hell night) , I took all of the cartons of eggs out of the self serve cooler and placed them in a refrigerator only I had access to at the instruction of the store owner. If someone wanted to buy eggs, it was at my discretion. 18 years old and wants 4 dozen eggs? Nope, no way kid! Was it proper? IMO, yes, because we know what those kids would be doing with those eggs. They intended to commit minor acts of vandalism, and if you ever had to clean dried, uncooked egg off your windscreen, you would agree with the shop owners, and my, decision.

If you were a teenager, out for a night of 'fun', you would vehemently disagree.

It may sound off topic, but... baking a cake for a same-sex couple harms no one, while selling eggs to teenagers on hell night can cause harm to the victims. Issuing a license for a same sex couple to marry harms no one in reality, yet some people think it 'devalues' marriage based on their religious presuppositions.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok there is a lot to digest here and I could talk about doctrinal religious, cabalistic, mystical, metaphysical or scientific writings, all attempting to explain the age of our modern world. After reading so many books, having watched documentaries + historical events I can personally conclude that our civilization started  7,000 years ago. There is nothing else going beyond 6,000 bc and archeological findings are simply failing to argue this fact.

The earliest known records of a human settlement are of Catal Hoyuk an Early Neolithic site in Anatolia, south central Turkey (6300-5500 BC). The oldest records of ancient Egypt go back to approximately 3250 BCE.

the religious version of the creation is probably looking at our birth as modern civilization and one from all I can agree with this unless science will prove it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Golden Duck

Would you kindly point out where I stated that a person's beliefs are "anti-social"?

I know that I have stated that belief in certain "facts" may be fallacious, but I don't recall stating that they were either anti-social, or criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

So, if I'm reading this correctly, in Australia, a shop owner must serve everyone, regardless of he shop owners religious beliefs?

That sounds like a very progressive government you have there!

If it wasn't that I consider Australia to be gods bio-weapons lab, I might consider moving there. :)

Y'all have waaaaaay too many critters that are lethal to human life for my taste. :)

 

The cake-shop owner example specifically relates to wedding industry service providers.  The review, I mentioned earlier, specifically focusses on religious freeedoms and same-sex marriage.  I private, unaffiliated, celebrant would not be part of that review.  That's how I understand it.

A few years ago, I remember a report of a Tattooist refusing to serve an Israeli.  I'm not sure there was any legal ramification; but, they were either exposed to moral-hazard or got free advertising.  To me it's bizarre story.  I didn't think Jews were supposed to get tattoos, so what's the grievance.

All the critters are timid or at least mind there own business.  I guess that's proof of evolution.  Environmental pressures have evolved us into a PC nanny-state.

My personal gripe is that while we are allowed to own a still up to five litres in capacity and use it to distill essential oils, it's illegal to produce spirit for consumption.  However, New Zealand are allowed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

rIssuing a license for a same sex couple to marry harms no one in reality, yet some people think it 'devalues' marriage based on their religious presuppositions.

That is the very objection they have, they think gay marriage is harmful to the "sanctity" (?) of marriage, and don't want to be seen endorsing it, or  feel being made a hypocrite catering to it. And I suspect there would be some who catch wind of a cake shop being reluctant, would zero in on them and try and make an example of them. It all smacks of unnecessary compulsion, to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@qxcontinuum

I googled "oldest example of human civilization", and this was the very first item:

DNA Study Finds Aboriginal Australians World’s Oldest Civilization

https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-australians-worlds-oldest-civilization


 

Quote

 

While some scholars have theorized that indigenous Australians descended from a separate, earlier migration than that of Eurasian people, the study’s authors report that the majority of non-Africans stem from a single ancestral group of migrants who left Africa approximately 72,000 years ago and eventually spread across the other continents. While European and Asian ancestral groups became distinct in the genetic record around 42,000 years ago, the researchers say that occurred even earlier—approximately 58,000 years ago—in the case of indigenous Papuan and Australian ancestral groups as they ventured eastward.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am becoming a little bored with some of the lore of Australia's 40,000 year "civilization". Especially when I heard an aboriginal man complaining about how some of the elders were uncomfortable with the Apollo moon shot, seeing it as unwelcome interference with an object of traditional significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

@Golden Duck

Would you kindly point out where I stated that a person's beliefs are "anti-social"?

I know that I have stated that belief in certain "facts" may be fallacious, but I don't recall stating that they were either anti-social, or criminal.

I didn't say you did. 

I post #52 you said ...

On 16/07/2019 at 8:12 AM, Jodie.Lynne said:

...

If one can disregard those sciences, it isn't hard to ignore  others as well that disagree with your religious beliefs. Like vaccinations, blood transfusions, organ donation, and ecology.

Why conserve species, or protect wilderness areas? Why be concerned about the environment? God gave us dominion over the earth, so we needn't worry about it.

It's the behaviour (not beliefs) introduced here that I am referring to as anti-social.  You later introduced racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

I've interpreted behaviour as being tied to beliefs.  That belief in YEC is a gateway to other beliefs and potentially anti-social behaviour.  NB, I am includin unfair work-place discrimination under the umbrella of anti-social.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That belief in YEC is a gateway to other beliefs and potentially anti-social behaviour.  NB, I am includin unfair work-place discrimination under the umbrella of anti-social.

Would you agree that, for some people, belief in "A" might lead to belief in "B", based on the person's assumption that "A" was correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think belief in YEC is only indicative of a belief that thinking can hurt your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

@qxcontinuum

I googled "oldest example of human civilization", and this was the very first item:

DNA Study Finds Aboriginal Australians World’s Oldest Civilization

https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-australians-worlds-oldest-civilization

I hate it when writers abuse the word "civilization", especially when in this case the word is nowhere in the actual genetic study. 

https://www.academia.edu/28677243/A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia

cormac

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@cormac mac airt

 

Could you give a brief synopsis of the article? My poor tired brain is not up to wading through that article at the moment. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jodie.Lynne said:

Would you agree that, for some people, belief in "A" might lead to belief in "B", based on the person's assumption that "A" was correct?

Yes I agree it's possible.  It's still equivalent to saying A may, or may not, lead to B.

Your premise logically can never be false.

Consider the truth table for the material conditional.

Quote

Truth table[edit]

The truth table associated with the material conditional pq is identical to that of ¬pq. It is as follows:

{\displaystyle p}p {\displaystyle q}q {\displaystyle p\rightarrow q}{\displaystyle p\rightarrow q}
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional#Truth_table

In your premise the consequent (q) - may, or may not, lead to B (other beliefs) - can be represented by the disjunction B OR NOT B.  By the Law of excluded middle B OR NOT B is always true.  A material conditional statement where the consequent is always true, is itself, always true.

I don't accept that the premise is useful in anyway.  

Recalling my JW former colleague - she worked in sales.  Hearing her talk to customers - it occurs to me that she had an ability to believe or "just accept" and it was an asset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

@cormac mac airt

 

Could you give a brief synopsis of the article? My poor tired brain is not up to wading through that article at the moment. :)

I'll give you the Abstract which pretty much says it all. NOTHING in this paper says anything about Aboriginal Australians being a civilization.

Quote

The population history of Aboriginal Australians remains largely uncharacterized. Here we generate high-coverage
genomes for 83 Aboriginal Australians (speakers of Pama–Nyungan languages) and 25 Papuans from the New Guinea
Highlands. We find that Papuan and Aboriginal Australian ancestors diversified 25–40 thousand years ago (kya), suggesting
pre-Holocene population structure in the ancient continent of Sahul (Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania). However,
all of the studied Aboriginal Australians descend from a single founding population that differentiated ~10–32 kya.
We infer a population expansion in northeast Australia during the Holocene epoch (past 10,000 years) associated with
limited gene flow from this region to the rest of Australia, consistent with the spread of the Pama–Nyungan languages.
We estimate that Aboriginal Australians and Papuans diverged from Eurasians 51–72 kya, following a single out-of-Africa
dispersal, and subsequently admixed with archaic populations.
Finally, we report evidence of selection in Aboriginal
Australians potentially associated with living in the desert.

https://www.academia.edu/28677243/A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

If one thinks the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, one is marginalizing one self.

Well said.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All extremist thinking, is by definition, at the margins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

 

Ecclesiastes 1 New International Version (NIV)

Everything Is Meaningless

The words of the Teacher,[a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:

“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
    says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
    Everything is meaningless.”

Wisdom Is Meaningless

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
    the more knowledge, the more grief.

Yes.  In this case I don’t appreciate the NIV however.  I prefer the old King Jimmy.  Vanity.  All is vanity saith the preacher.

Interesting how different versions change meaning,  I think vanity has more meaning than meaninglessness.  The reason is that there is understanding in experiencing vanity, so it’s not meaningless.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

We estimate that Aboriginal Australians and Papuans diverged from Eurasians 51–72 kya, following a single out-of-Africa
dispersal, and subsequently admixed with archaic populations.

So it would be safe to say that humans have been human, far longer than the 6,000+ years that YEC believe?

Be gentle, I am the tired. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

So it would be safe to say that humans have been human, far longer than the 6,000+ years that YEC believe?

Be gentle, I am the tired. :)

Genus wise (Homo) for 2.8 million years; cranio-morphologically and behaviorally for 35,000 - 100,000 years. So yeah. :)

cormac

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

Yes.  In this case I don’t appreciate the NIV however.  I prefer the old King Jimmy.  Vanity.  All is vanity saith the preacher.

Interesting how different versions change meaning,  I think vanity has more meaning than meaninglessness.  The reason is that there is understanding in experiencing vanity, so it’s not meaningless.  

Not really! For this topic it's meaningless to associate "Faith" in general, as the force driving people to believe anything being told to them by ones that they hold in high esteem, as having a better understanding of the scriptures that they themselves have. But you are playing with words, as far as experiences go. Double talk, I'd say. If one is vain, experience shows that they are meaningless persons.

In any event, the meat of my post was to show that the scriptures have the earth as being very old, as even the KJV has the earth as existing forever.

But the King James version, with the term, "vanity," is more befitting the OP. As it has been stated, vanity was clearly implied in the form of giving airs of superiority, due to the OP's assumption of being better educated. And therefore having superior belief that he has more precise knowledge for the age of the earth, by having a degree from a prestigious university. However, the OP failed to disclose which university, and whether or not the person of faith he was mocking also had a degree from a university. Perhaps she may have, and the OP was, indirectly, by being vague, wanting to vaunt his university as being more prestigious than the one attended by secretary?

I had worked for a very large employer, and many of the secretaries there had college degrees. Taking a secretarial position for many was only to get a foot in the door, as they say. A few of these secretaries, as I recall, over the years went on to careers as managers and directors. I cannot say just how many of them were of faith, since it was not any business of mine.

Regarding the change of meaning for a change in term, meaningless, and vanity. I don't see it, since vanity is reflective of anything meaningless, and both terms can be synonyms in certain contexts, especially where the content in which they are being used makes the meaning clearer with the aid of further terms and examples. Clearly the case here.

But you still failed to catch my drift, as I was wanting to know if you, during your height of religious faith, when you were attending services 3 times a week, and also being an admitted admirer of Solomon's wisdom, had been a proponent of a youthful earth? And what made you change your mind, if you had entertained such "foolish" thoughts, as it is implied by the "OP?." Was it the attending of a prestigious university that made you less foolish, and wiser to the truth?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.