Jump to content

Menu

Cricket

Members
  • Posts

    2,793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cricket

  1. Discount Tire-- I recently had a flat (nail in tire) and they wouldn't repair it since it was too far into the sidewall.  When I said I just couldn't buy a new tire that day (but I would have money in a week or so) I told them to just air it up and I would drive home (two blocks-- I have just done this to get there) they insisted they would give me a used tire for free-- I was super surprised and pleased especially when I later noticed it was a brand new tire!

     

    Costco-- My daughter (13) was sick and being whinny in their store and she crawled behind the shelves and when she was told (for the billionth time) to get out, she broke something.  The mess was cleaned and I went to checkout to pay for the broken item (which DD was going to have to pay me back for) and the checker noted the parenting situation, and let the sale stand without saying a word-- then she pulled me aside and said she didn't want to mess  with my parenting, but normally we wouldn't ever have to pay for an accident.  I was pleased she didn't speak up and let DD off the hook, but still let me know what their own policy was.

     

    Bass shoe outlet-- I recently bought a pair of $70 penny loafers (which I got for Christmas and have been wanting for  several years) and after wearing them for one day, they went from too tight to way too big once the leather stretched.  They took them back with no issue and I bought another pair and it has the same warranty as the first pair (another 30 days even if worn) plus a (forever?) warranty for manufacturer  issues -- (like stitching)

     

    We've always had a good experience with Discount Tires too. They always been more than fair with us and are always very nice.

     

    We loved Les Schwab Tires when we lived in the northwest!

  2. To what end? In what measure should faith have a part in the role of explaining biodiversity on earth? The facts speak for themselves, and all that is necessary is one who knows the facts. Ken Ham is the scientific equivalent of Westboro Baptist Church - using fear of damnation and guilt of rejecting sweet Jesus instead of big signs and catchy slogans, but he is doing the same thing. They trying to "warn" people that if they don't read and believe the bible as it's written word for word, God will damn them and send them to hell. A Christian scientist would be of no more interest to Ken Ham than a Christian preacher would be to Fred Phelps. Theology has no place in a scientific discussion, and Ham has no interest listening to information. He points out in his statement of faith that he follows the word of scripture, full stop. Bill Nye will not be talking to Ken Ham, but to young people who are questioning the arguably bizarre tales they've been encouraged to believe are real.

    I didn't say anything about faith having a role in explaining biodiversity. As a person of faith, *I* am interested in the theological implications of evolution that Ham claims as true. To me, that is where the real debate is. I'm sure that kind of debate wouldn't interest everyone. As far as theology having no place in a scientific discussion, not everyone compartmentalizes subjects. I understand not having preconceived ideas as part of the scientific method when it comes to fact finding but to extrapolate that into theology and science not even belonging in the same conversation? Nothing will ever convince me of that, sorry.

  3. Personally, I would like to see a debate between someone like Ham and a Christian scientist who accepts evolution.  I think that is why Ham is so successful. He has turned the creation issue into a salvation issue.  Someone who knows theology as well as science would be better equipped to debate the issue as Ham sees it.

  4. According to some polls, almost half of all Americans believe that God created human beings in their present form. If that is the case, I'm not exactly sure why scientists wouldn't want to get their side out there.  I can understand wanting different people in the debate, but to ignore the issue altogether because the other side deserves no such attention is really stupid.  It's not like Ken Ham is the only one who believes these things.  Aren't the followers of Ken Ham the ones scientists really need to explain things to?  They would hardly watch a TV show on evolution.  And then to use the excuse that Ken Ham might win?  Good grief.

     

     

    I read an interesting article on why the debate is a terrible idea: http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2014/1/16/why-bill-nye-shouldn-t-debate-ken-ham#

    I'll copy and paste here:

     

    Why Bill Nye shouldn't debate Ken Ham

    by Dan Arel posted on January 16, 2014 05:38PM GMT

     

    Scientists should not debate creationists. Period. This may sound harsh but let's start by looking at what sparked this statement. TV personality and science advocate Bill Nye (Bill Nye the Science Guy) has accepted an invitation to debate Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis / The Creation Museum on February 4, 2014 at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

     

    This is a bad idea and here is why.

     

     

    Debating creationists offer their position credibility

     

    When you accept a debate, you are accepting there is something worth debating. Political ideologies are worth debating, religion as it pertains to things like human well-being and flourishing can be worth debating, because these kinds of ideas claim to offer solutions to problems and they are debating the best way to achieve such problems. Debates about the existence of God can be fun, they are not really that meaningful, but they are a debate about ideas and beliefs and can be worth effort.

     

    Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a scientific fact, backed by mountains of evidence, peer-reviewed papers you could stack to the moon and an incredible scientific community consensus.  Creationism is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith. It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested.

     

    Why would a scientist debate this? Nye would do more good on his own going on TV and discussing evolution and the importance of scientific education instead of giving Ken Ham any publicity and a public forum with thousands, if not millions of viewers, to spew his dishonesty. Ham is a snake oil salesmen and Nye just offered him up an infomercial to sell his product. Ham can repeat his mantra over and over; “teach the controversyâ€.

     

    Nye is not a biologist

     

    I do not know an incredible amount about Bill Nye other than I loved his show. However, a Google search only turned up that Nye has nothing more than a bachelor’s degree in engineering and three honorary doctorate degrees. We fault Christian apologists almost daily for trying to ride their honorary degrees, it would seem only fair we hold Nye to the same standard.

     

    So we have Nye, a very smart man with a degree in engineering, not biology, not anthropology, and he does not practice any form of research science. Nye should be credited greatly for his work in education; but as a qualified candidate to defend evolution, especially against the likes of conmen like Ken Ham, he is not.

     

    You must fully understand your opponent

     

    This is mere speculation but I have no reason to believe that Nye has the firm grasp on creationism that would be needed to go up against the likes of someone like Ham.

     

    To win a debate successfully you must understand your opponent's position better than they do, in fact, you should know it well enough that you could debate for them.

     

    Creationists have no rules, their dishonesty stops nowhere. Nye will attempt to use proper science and reason to bring down Ham, but Ham will care little for any facts or evidence and will stick to nonsense and will feed on audience ignorance and use terms like "irreducible complexity" to confuse the watchers into thinking he has made a valid point. Key phrases like “half a wing†will fly from his lips as he openly ignores science's amazing understanding of the evolution of things like the eye, or wings. Ham will be relying on faith and pushing the biblical teachings onto the viewers and will attempt to call out anytime science could have been wrong to tear down its credibility.

     

    This debate is being held at the Creation Museum itself and this will ensure that the brain-dead creationist zombies come out in droves to support Ham and loudly applaud anytime he manages to string together and coherent sentence, or even more likely shouts that his grandmother was no monkey.

     

    I honestly think it would be fantastic to see Nye destroy Ham, but will that do any good? Suddenly a little known figure outside of his circles, Ham will be thrust into the spotlight, reaching impressionable youths around the world, and as great as it would be to see him taken down, the risks of him winning are greater.

     

    The American people are not going to dissect Nye’s credentials to accept such a debate and if he goes down, he will take down a lot of hard work in science with him. If the American people, who are already weary of science and already disown the idea of evolution as quickly as possible, see who in their minds is a top scientist lose to a creationist, we will have taken steps backwards in time.

     

    The risk versus reward in this scenario is not worth it. Nye is putting a lot at risk and he is not the man to do so.

     

    Creationism is a worthless and uneducated position to hold in our modern society and Nye is about to treat it as an equal, debatable “controversyâ€.

     

    Dan Arel is a freelance writer, speaker and secular advocate residing in San Diego, CA. He writes on secular and humanist values on subjects such as secular parenting, church and state separation, education reform and secularism in public policy.  Follow Dan on Twitter @danarel.

     

     

  5. Please explain why we have to rely on drawings on cave walls (that are vague at best as to what they are supposed to be) when dinosaurs are not mentioned in any ancient texts.  Again, one would think if raptors and T-Rex were running loose they would get at least a passing mention.  The reality is that your beliefs lack both a logical foundation and basic supporting evidence.

     

    http://humanexperience.stanford.edu/feature-dragons

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/04/science/greek-myths-not-necessarily-mythical.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

     

    Interesting!

  6. This one is really good---Crock Pot Italian Beef Sandwiches

    http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/276850-italian-beef-sandwich-recipe-who-has-it/?hl=+amy&do=findComment&comment=2757714

    Crock Pot Italian Beef Sandwiches

     

    3 -4 lb. chuck or rump roast -- trimmed of fat

    1 package dry Good Seasons Italian salad dressing mix

    1/2 of a 16 oz. jar pepperoncini peppers -- including juice (or more to taste- I just dump the whole thing in but usually have a bigger roast)

    1 cup water and 1 package au jus gravy packet OR 1 can beef broth

    sliced cheese (swiss or provolone)

    kaiser rolls

     

     

    Mix all ingredients together in a slow cooker or crockpot. Cook several hours (5-8 hours) on low. When meat is done (at lest 5 hours), shred it and put back in its juices to finish the cooking time. The more time it has to soak up the juices after you shred it, the better! Put shredded meat on rolls. Top with favorite cheese and put the top roll on. Bake in the oven or put under the broiler until roll is toasted and cheese is melted. Serve with a bowl of the juices and peppers for dipping.

    Yes!!!

  7. :hugs: I'd run far, far away from a church like this as well. I hope the transition to a new church goes more smoothly now that the break is over. You have already tried to explain to your pastor. You don't owe him any more than that.

  8. From what I'm seeing online, a landlord has to provide heat but it can be in the form of space heaters as long as they are adequate. If you can't run more than one at a time, that doesn't sound adequate at all, especially at those temps. Did you provide the space heaters or did he? It's my understanding that if the furnace was in working order when you rented the house, he can't forbid you to use it and he is responsible for maintaining it, not you.

×
×
  • Create New...