Intelligent Design?

[spuriousmonkey]

Anyway, if we can all get off our nice abstract high horses and get back onto the topic of ID, speaking of which, Behe was in the box at the current trial, and seems to have managed to make himself look stupid.

Good to hear that...

 

[spuriousmonkey]

So you just said that to be provacative, knowing it was an empty statement only supported through choosing random statistics that appear to support it, but really don't?

The statistics were a response to Raithere who managed to pull a GDP rabbit out of his sleeve. I merely posted the statistics to show it means nothing.

I can tell you from personal experience that Finnish society seems to be healthier than the American.

There is I think no point in trying to prove it as we are all prejudiced in this matter since we have different values.

 

[wesmorris]

I know what you were responding to, but you were saying that since Finland outcompetes America, then socialism must be working fine... but then you basically shot your own argument in the foot by saying "anyone can find statistics to support their argument" when presented with statistical evidence that constradicted your point.

Regardless, it's nice that you like your country. Yay Finland.

Actually one might make the argument that the more resources a government has at its disposal for smaller investment, the easier socialism can be sustained.

*clears throat*

Yes, ID is dumb and pisses me off. Hearing "science" in the same sentence as Intelligent Design (tm) unless preceded by "is not" simply exposes the person doing the spewing's lack of understanding as to what comprises science.

It is SO repackaged creationism by christians who took some statistics or science and didn't get it.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

(finland is not my country)

Been reading a bit the news lines on the trial but I don't really get the image from them that the 'science' side struck a blow to ID. I almost got the idea that the news sites were actually trying to take sides with ID.

 

[wesmorris]

From http://www.idsnews.com/subsite/story.php?id=31951&adid=campus

"It's not just a science versus Christian fundamentalist issue," Steven Bradley said. "(Scott's speech) made it seem very one-sided ... that evolution is proven, and there's nothing to discuss. I think students should be given the opportunity to look at the evidence and decide for themselves."

Sophomore Ty Childers, a member of Campus Crusade for Christ, is anticipating the opportunity to do just that.

"I'm looking forward to hearing another perspective and seeing how science backs up my faith," he said.

LOL. I think this is really an attempt to give "faith" some vision. Christians are seeking a logical argument to support their beliefs... something a little more than a book. Can anyone present the meat of the ID argument from the smartest people in it? I mean, in the quoted argument, the chair of one of the engineering departments from somewhere is going around giving speeches on how ID is cool. He is surely not a moron (but maybe he became one over time), so I want to know how he uses "concepts from thermo" and such to "prove" that ID is correct. I want to slaughter his argument.

 

[KennyJC]

I read an article on ID... which was philisophically interesting, but scientifically stupid.

Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can make other robots just like themselves from raw materials.

Now, imagine an alien visitor coming to the planet and, after many years of studying these robots, coming to the conclusion that since science can explain how these robots work and function there's no reason to believe that there was an ultimate intelligent designer behind them.

Yes, so science observes the robots and how they operate. The I.D. (tm) comes along and says God did it. There is your philosophy and religion adapted from the observations of science. That is all science is (correct me if I am wrong), observation. I think it is about time the fundies realize science doesn't try to proove there isn't a God, but rather just observe what God (or not) has created.

The above story was contributed by Mr. Babu G. Ranganathan. Mr. Ranganathan has B.A. degree in Bible and Biology from Bob Jones University.

Bob Jones University... enough said.

 

[Avatar]

You can buy these degrees online usually from 20$ to 200$

 

[Raithere]

You mean you don't know that your luxury is bought with the suffering of other people? People conviently living somewhere else?

I've certainly heard the assertion before. I've yet to see anyone actually demonstrate it.

And what does GDP tell you about living conditions and wellbeing of the general population? Nothing.

You're the one making bold assertions about "out-competing on almost every level". GDP per capita statistics would indicate that this is not so. Forget it, my fault for getting side-tracked. I've still yet to see you prove a point about corporations however.

Everybody can pick a stat that makes his point look good.

Very true.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

It used to be pretty good. During the nineties, our average growth was well above the EU average. However, after a significant slow down in recent years, the expected recovery fails to materialise.

New industry boom in the 90's, then the bust. Recovery is going to be slow for everone.

My experience is that humans are competitive by nature. The drive to do better seems to be built in, regardless of a financial incentive. I'll admit that a suitable reward does obviously help, but I do not think it is the sole motivation for work. Why would there be a large community of volunteers, if a more attractive bank balance was the only motivation which could make people do something?

It not the only reason people work but it is the main reason why people have jobs.

Yet, you can not keep the whole of society to your high standards. People make mistakes, and sometimes are unable to carry the consequences. That means some else has to pick up to bill. Today, that may very well be you, but what if the day comes when you make a mistake you have not been adequately prepared for?

I do think there should be safety nets for people who fall on bad times, make mistakes, or are for one reason or another unable to provide for themselves. But I also think that the solution has to be more comprehensive than just subsidizing people's living expenses. It's the difference between helping someone out and carrying them around on your back.

Part of this includes assisting the business sector. People are complaining about what's going on with United but if the company goes under that's 120,000 more people out of work. Is it fair that some 22,000 won't get their entire pension? Of course not. But it's better than maybe getting no pension and having 120,000 people with no income at all.

You get to live with the comforting thought that you are helping to build a society in which equal opportunity could bring social stability. Moreover, you may expect that when life turns around on you, you can count on protection just as well.

It's a nice idea. The problem is that governments, particularly ours, tend to be completely incompetent and irresponsible with financial matters or with just about anything else for that matter. They are horribly inefficient. They are run by power-mongers who attend to special interest groups over the interests of the public. And really, other than the general notion that companies are evil, this is one of my primary issues.

I simply do not agree that the government has earned my trust. I don't see the results we should see for the amount of money being thrown at these various problems. I see it getting eaten away by bureaucratic overhead, mismanagement, special interests, etc. It is much better, in my opinion, to give the money to organizations that specialize in assisting people with various needs. Maybe this isn't always true. Maybe in smaller countries like Finland the government can remain lean enough to get a good return on the public's investment.

Perhaps. Personally, I find a university's approach to promote critical thinking extremely valuable in an open democracy and quite profitable when it comes to running a business.

I agree. And education is a key issue. I'm just not sure everyone needs a master's degree or is capable of earning one.

If I remember correctly, two months notice or pay is considered appropiate here.

Even if they're fired for cause?

However, an employer is only elligble to give two consecutive time-limited contracts. The third is automatically for an indeterminate amount of time.

We have some similar restrictions on contracts here, I believe it's no more than three, six-month contracts. More than that and you have to hire them as a regular employee (full benefits, etc).

As an exercise, I looked up which decisions for a layoff can be challenged by an employee.

We have very similar laws.

Nor would I'd call it extremely strict.

Should it be? If an employee is not doing a good job or if the company cannot afford to keep them should the company be made to keep them on?

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Can't believe people are so naive to think companies are nice..large or small...

Of course not all companies are nice. But it's just as naive to assume they're all evil too. The problem I see is you seem to think businesses should be charities. Corporations have to mantain a profit or they cease to exist.

What I'd like to hear is why those companies you mentioned did what they did.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

They need to make profit. Well, not necessarily. Money needs to go into the right places. Sometimes that is profit, sometimes that is just money going into the right pockets. That is why they do what they do.


The economic motto of the US would be:

It works!

For some of us!


I can't really see how you can defend a system like that with a straight face. Unless you are part of 'us'.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I was talking to a cleaner here at the university (he is black of course). Although there are no formal restrictions he avoids most interactions with any of the staff members or students. He certainly avoids any personal discussion. Because he knows how fragile his position is.

And of course if you have always been lucky and been treated nice, you might start getting a false idea of how the world really works. Because most of these nasty processes occur underneath the surface.

But you don't have to tell the people who actually live at the bottom how the world really turns. They have no illusions of grandeur of their society.

 

[Raithere]

They need to make profit. Well, not necessarily. Money needs to go into the right places. Sometimes that is profit, sometimes that is just money going into the right pockets. That is why they do what they do.

Let me put this more precisely then; businesses need to have a positive cash flow. Otherwise they go broke and no one gets paid. Publicly traded companies do need to make a profit, otherwise they loose their investors along with the capital they need. Unlike governments and their beneficiaries corporations are not allowed to simply take money from people by force.

I can't really see how you can defend a system like that with a straight face. Unless you are part of 'us'.

What system is it that you think I'm defending? What alternative would you suggest?

I was talking to a cleaner here at the university (he is black of course). Although there are no formal restrictions he avoids most interactions with any of the staff members or students. He certainly avoids any personal discussion. Because he knows how fragile his position is.

Sounds more like a racial issue then. Or perhaps it's simply his problem. I've done the scut work too. Did janitorial service in a hotel, bussed tables, ran room service. Used to work in a warehouse too... 110 degree summers pulling crates of steel and aluminum parts out of semi-trailers. I never had a problem talking to the executives or the CEO. In fact I used the opportunity to begin my career. Ducking your head and hoping no one notices you is certain to lead nowhere. You have to take the risk.

And of course if you have always been lucky and been treated nice, you might start getting a false idea of how the world really works.

Sometimes I've been treated nice. Sometimes I've been treated badly. Have you come up with some system where people always treat each other nice, all the time? Where politics, prejudice, and personality never conflict? Please, do tell us of this wonderful system.

Because most of these nasty processes occur underneath the surface.

Show me anywhere that is different.

But you don't have to tell the people who actually live at the bottom how the world really turns. They have no illusions of grandeur of their society.

Where did I say this is a grand society? We have all sorts of problems. What I jumped on was this ill-informed, propagandist notion that all corporations are evil and responsible for all the world's ills.

~Raithere

 

[duendy]

yes raithere you seem quite content in cutthroat buzness corporate world. is shows in your cold cold pros

 

[mouse]

First of all, my pardon for doing my part in derailing this thread. I have no excuse for it, other than it's really good fun.

New industry boom in the 90's, then the bust. Recovery is going to be slow for everone.

With "new industry", I'm assuming you refer to IT. Well, I'm in IT myself. Saw the bust happening around me, but oddly enough this year IT seems quite healthy. For example, we have great difficulties in finding a candidate for a developer vacancy which could be interpreted as a sign that demand is on the rise again.

It not the only reason people work but it is the main reason why people have jobs.

Granted, most of us have jobs as to pay the bills, secure our future and indulge ourselves in the ocassional luxury.

I do think there should be safety nets for people who fall on bad times, make mistakes, or are for one reason or another unable to provide for themselves. But I also think that the solution has to be more comprehensive than just subsidizing people's living expenses. It's the difference between helping someone out and carrying them around on your back.

A technique I've seen used is to couple the height of a social benefit with the recipient's effort in pursuing a job or an education.

Part of this includes assisting the business sector. People are complaining about what's going on with United but if the company goes under that's 120,000 more people out of work. Is it fair that some 22,000 won't get their entire pension? Of course not. But it's better than maybe getting no pension and having 120,000 people with no income at all.

So why not let the government interfere and assist the company in question to deliver the pensions? I'm not up to speed with what's going on with United, but if the unions and a company significant enough to be of national interest, can not work things out together, isn't the government a logical choice to join the negotiation table?

It's a nice idea. The problem is that governments, particularly ours, tend to be completely incompetent and irresponsible with financial matters or with just about anything else for that matter. They are horribly inefficient. They are run by power-mongers who attend to special interest groups over the interests of the public. And really, other than the general notion that companies are evil, this is one of my primary issues.

You are giving up on an ideology, because you are of the opinion that the instrument used to implement that ideology is flawed? Would it not be fair to study how to correct the instrument, or in our case the government, rather than to give up on it?

I simply do not agree that the government has earned my trust. I don't see the results we should see for the amount of money being thrown at these various problems. I see it getting eaten away by bureaucratic overhead, mismanagement, special interests, etc.

Is, in your opinion, this mismanagement an unavoidable part of a government?

It is much better, in my opinion, to give the money to organizations that specialize in assisting people with various needs.

How do you envision that happening? The government allocates its funds to foundations and charity organizations specializing on various needs? The overhead would still be there, only now not under the banner of the government, but under the name of a charity organization.

Maybe this isn't always true. Maybe in smaller countries like Finland the government can remain lean enough to get a good return on the public's investment.

Maybe indeed scale matters. Around here it's an actual topic, as the EU strives to further integrate member states, fears arise that a "super-government" will have lost too much transparancy for the public to properly control it. I suppose we should look at the US, learn from her mistakes and see if we can do better.

I agree. And education is a key issue. I'm just not sure everyone needs a master's degree or is capable of earning one.

Nor am I, but it seems only fair and even wise for a country relying on technological innovations and cultural attraction that everyone who is willing and capable, should be given the chance to follow higher education.

Even if they're fired for cause?

It probably depends on many factors. I think it's safe to say that if it's proven that the employee directly damaged the company, it can be instantaneous.

Should it be? If an employee is not doing a good job or if the company cannot afford to keep them should the company be made to keep them on?

I understand that it's sometimes necessary to sacrifice a few positions to keep the company afloat, I'd not argue that. What I do fear though is that when the threshold to lay people off is too low, the employee would find him- or herself in a position vulnerable for abuse by employers. There should be some balance between the rights of the employees and the freedom of employers. But I do not claim to have the expertise to find this balance.

 

[Raithere]

yes raithere you seem quite content in cutthroat buzness corporate world. is shows in your cold cold pros

What I don't believe in is the right to take by force what someone else has made. I don't believe someone's has right to leach off of society because they are too lazy to do for themselves. I don't believe in adults shirking their responsibility towards themselves and their own. I don't believe in supporting stupidity, greed, or dogma. I don't believe in someone else right to take from me as they see fit and distributing it as they wish.

What I believe in is improving the world and improving society and I work hard to do just that. By doing so I not only improve things for myself and my own but I am able to help others. By doing so, I add to society instead of just leeching off of it. By doing so, I provide not only for myself but for others.

I volunteer my time, labor, and money (which is a product of my time and labor as well) to a number of organizations such as UNICEF, CASA, Habitat for Humanity, United Way, Amnesty International, the NCSE, and homeless and animal shelters. I mentor children and I've helped to protect over 700 acres of woodland. I believe in helping those who are less fortunate, I believing in supporting those who cannot support themselves, I believe in helping get people back on their feet, I believe in protecting the lives and well being of others. I believe I have a moral obligation to do so and I act upon that ethic.

Clear enough? Still sound cutthroat, and cold to you? Or am I still an asshole because I don't believe government charity is the answer and believe that corporations are an important and largely positive factor in the economic well being of a society?

~Raithere

 

[duendy]

What I don't believe in is the right to take by force what someone else has made. I don't believe someone's has right to leach off of society because they are too lazy to do for themselves. I don't believe in adults shirking their responsibility towards themselves and their own. I don't believe in supporting stupidity, greed, or dogma. I don't believe in someone else right to take from me as they see fit and distributing it as they wish.

me:then, if that is so, your life is a contradiction. for all the wealth that you see, and worship has come about through the massiive, and long, exploitation of the common people. THEIR labour, and blood, and early deaths andmiserable lives. The ones who --now many are desprate in thi vile heartless souldead corporate hellish world --you look down your precious nose at.

What I believe in is improving the world and improving society and I work hard to do just that. By doing so I not only improve things for myself and my own but I am able to help others. By doing so, I add to society instead of just leeching off of it. By doing so, I provide not only for myself but for others.

me::is that so. you obviously are not improving anything, cause your ideas fit prfectly with te very exploitation thats been going on since.......a long long time

I volunteer my time, labor, and money (which is a product of my time and labor as well) to a number of organizations such as UNICEF, CASA, Habitat for Humanity, United Way, Amnesty International, the NCSE, and homeless and animal shelters. I mentor children and I've helped to protect over 700 acres of woodland. I believe in helping those who are less fortunate, I believing in supporting those who cannot support themselves, I believe in helping get people back on their feet, I believe in protecting the lives and well being of others. I believe I have a moral obligation to do so and I act upon that ethic.

me::but you brag about it, and this gives you your justification for branding others
'leeches', etc.....bet it is always te poor never the rich. the real fukin leeches!

Clear enough? Still sound cutthroat, and cold to you? Or am I still an asshole because I don't believe government charity is the answer and believe that corporations are an important and largely positive factor in the economic well being of a society?

me::still sound a cutthroat; but a VERY hypocritical one!

~Raithere

the status quo maintaines itself through the ages through sheer brutal exploitation

 

[mouse]

Duendy,

Surely, you are not hypocritical. Surely, you have a clean conscience. But how do you manage to live in a first world country, without buying stuff from the (multinational)corporations you seem to despise so much? You slaughter or grow your own food? You made the clothes you wear? You move about solely on foot?

 

[duendy]

Duendy,

Surely, you are not hypocritical. Surely, you have a clean conscience.

me::have i hell!!

But how do you manage to live in a first world country, without buying stuff from the (multinational)corporations you seem to despise so much? You slaughter or grow your own food? You made the clothes you wear? You move about solely on foot?

cause i have no fukin choice is why. i try to do what i feel is alright. i do not want GM so get organic when i cn afford it and try and get products which are Fair Trade etc......i speak up for tose being oppressed my the stupid educational system...you know te millions of kids being drugged by big pharma corporation to 'fit in school to get a good education'...?
but i am no saint.

and you?

 

[mouse]

cause i have no fukin choice is why.

Oh, but you have a choice: consume as little as possible. I wouldn't be able to withstand the tempation of using modern comforts, but you may be a stronger man than I am.

i try to do what i feel is alright. i do not want GM so get organic when i cn afford it and try and get products which are Fair Trade etc

You do understand that Fair Trade is promoting business, rather than denouncing it, do you? It aims to help entrepeneurs in disadvantageous regions to help them make a better future for themselves. So, it seems, you are not particulary against the principle of business, but rather specifically against Western ones? Or just really big ones? What are you actually against?

i speak up for tose being oppressed my the stupid educational system...

To speak up for a group persons, to assume you have their interests in mind, is a prerogative which should be earned either by credentials or elections.

you know te millions of kids being drugged by big pharma corporation to 'fit in school to get a good education'...?

No, I do not. Which is odd, because millions of children hardly go unnoticed.

but i am no saint.

Neither am I. That's one of the reasons I don't go about shouting at posters that they are hypocritical.