Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mosgood on July 06, 2007, 09:13:32 AM
-
Just saw they are making a movie of it. I think i would be to scared to see it and be disappointed. Best fiction ever read.
-
Could be great, but I'm not sure how well the message of the book would go over. Rand was an objectivist who wrote in AS that society was being pulled down by "looters", her prescient description for the entitlement-happy society we have today that punished accomplishment, rewards mediocrity, and works under the assumption that the lowest common denominator should set the standards.
That's why one in five Americans believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, people believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools, and the government is systematically deconstructing our constitution with the approval of millions who seem to agree that liberty is the cheapest currency to spend on the illusion of safety.
-
all that aside chair... I agree with mosgood that they will screw it up. it is not a movie thing.. it is a head thing.
also.. I have no problem with the idea of creativism being thrown out there.. what are you afraid of?
My grand daughter will be going to catholic school this year on my dime... I know that creativism will be taught. I also know that she will get the best education in the area.
If you want to complain about what goes on in public schools your time would better spent wondering why we pay so much for part time teachers to teach so little and why schools that mention the evil creativism kick the crap out of the socialist ones so far as results.
I think Ayn would have more to say about public schools than that.... mentioning creativism is pretty small potatoes compared to everything else they do to our kids.
lazs
-
I went to catholic school .. well a Looong time ago lazs , and they did not teach creationism there.
-
They didn't teach that God created the universe and mankind?
Wow. The Catholic schools I attended through high school all taught that.
Yours would be atypical, I would think.
-
Never read "Atlas Shrugged", so I don't have a frame of reference. Generally I agree with Lazs. The idea that allowing either creationism or the theory of intelligent design to be considered alongside darwinism will somehow result in inferior education is simply not supported by the evidence. While I don't believe Creationism (i.e. the teaching of the biblical account of Genesis as scientific fact) should be taught in public school science class, I don't have any problem with teaching that some scientists (and about 70% of the population) look at the natural world and infer design from the evidence. I am also for teaching more about darwinian evolution then is currently taught, specifically evidence that supports it and evidence that does not. Surely teaching our kids to think critically about complex and controvertial issues in science can't be a bad thing for them.
-
This is the lowest common denominator, where undue weight is given to something because people FEEL strongly about it. Feelings and belief have no place in a science class where people are being taught to be critical. There is no critical thought allowed in Creationism, because all questions go back to "Because it is God's will". That won't teach students to be critical, it's a thinly veiled attempt to injection theology into a science course.
If a scientist asked to have a segment in Sunday school classes where he would offer criticism of The Flood, discuss how Carbon Dating puts the 6,000 year Earth to task, and wishes to show how the fossil record shows how animals changed over millions of years, would you be kosher with that?
I hope my kids will learn about the Christian creation story in school, right alongside the Tree of Life, norse tradition, the story of Buddha, etc. The Christian creation story belongs in a different context, not in a science class.
-
Originally posted by Toad
They didn't teach that God created the universe and mankind?
Wow. The Catholic schools I attended through high school all taught that.
Yours would be atypical, I would think.
They basically taught the Genesis story as an alegorical tale of God's work. They had no problem teaching natural selection.
-
<---- preferred fountainhead.
;)
-
Originally posted by JB88
<---- preferred fountainhead.
;)
that got a little weird with the sex humiliation :eek:
-
Originally posted by mosgood
that got a little weird with the sex humiliation :eek:
lol...ya...that part was a bit weird, but then, that may have just been because i couldnt help but think of rand when i read the book. (shudders)
:noid
-
I too was nervous when I heard that they were making a movie. However, this was partly lessened when I heard that they were splitting the movie into 2, possibly (though unlikely) 3 movies. I'm glad that they are doing this, because some of today's novel-movie conversions are so simple that they ruin the stories.
However, there is one key thing that WILL ruin this movie:
SPOILERS!!
They need to hire an unknown actor to play John Galt. By unknown, I mean he literally needs to have no previous big movies. The whole crux of the story is that John Galt is a pseudo famous person that is through out the entire story. However, we as the reader don't realize that he's through out the entire book until near the end. If they get a big name actor, you'd be able to pick his face out of a crowd, thus ruining the effect.
-
well that and you want people to literally be saying..."who is john galt?"
-
Com'on You know Tom Cruise would be great as John Galt!
And Ben Afleck as Santiago..
What a GREAT cast this would be!!!
:aok :aok
-
mav.. that is all I am saying.. they taught the bible version and they taught natural selection and other theories. To pretend that people do not believe in creativism and that it is not possible is some kind of silly.
Just throw it out there... say that some people believe such and such and the science can't prove em wrong yet. No big deal. Science can't prove intelligent design is wrong and billions of people believe it.. it should not be ignored in any institution that claims to teach.
lazs
-
Lazs, Creationism aka ID (not Christianity) is just fake science. It is a fraud, the same kind as those "scientist" that pretended they had scientific proof that races other than "Aryans" were sub-human.
Even supposing it were not nonsense to teach something that's not science as science, such as ID wishes it could be, it not being science means it is not a functional (not even mediocre) substitute to science.
I don't mean to repeat it ten different ways, but it is the same BS as politicians selling people their crap under the guise of bold new reform.
By all means, it ought to be taught in the field of philosophy (although I think it no place elsewhere than history), but not in science. I say nowhere better taught than in History class, because it doesn't even work as Religion. It's neither good at religion (human, artificial alterations of godly ideas) nor at rational purpose.
It isn't any good in terms of rational purpose because it comes from nowhere and leads to nowhere. It basicaly takes the worst from both science and religion.
About Rand's books: I haven't read it yet, but if it's that good, I guess I'll have to pick it up..
-
Originally posted by moot
About Rand's books: I haven't read it yet, but if it's that good, I guess I'll have to pick it up..
If you're into adding rambling manifestos to your "intellectual punch card" that have little to do with the world as it is, but enjoy drawing unintended parallels from the bible of unintended parallels that you think will impress freshmen sorority girls and other cult members, you might like it. You can also use it to prop up a broken leg under a sofa. ;)
-
Is it that bad? Not as good as e.g. 1984? Are the rest of her books any different?
-
No, it's a good book. It will strike up emotions, one way or another.
The basics of the book are that the looters are ruining society. The looters are those who tax anything that move, believe that everything should be equal, even if it has to be forced.
Basically, if you are even the tiniest bit conservative, you will find it a great book. If you are the tiniest bit liberal, you will abhor it completely because it is "Totally False."
In summary, if you believe you have to work for everything you want in life, you'll like it. If you believe the government should give you everything you need in life, you'll hate it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
In summary, if you believe you have to work for everything you want in life, you'll like it. If you believe the government should give you everything you need in life, you'll hate it.
Perfect summary
-
Originally posted by mosgood
Com'on You know Tom Cruise would be great as John Galt!
And Ben Afleck as Santiago..
What a GREAT cast this would be!!!
:aok :aok
they have special rooms in hell for people like you.
:cool:
-
It's a book for young people. If you already know that you have to work for everything you want in life, it's tedious.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
It's a book for young people. If you already know that you have to work for everything you want in life, it's tedious.
not so, if you have rich mommys an daddys you will never have to "work", you may find something to do that you can call "work" like shopping or going to parties or something.
-
I see, thanks.
-
I shouldn't discourage you from reading it, moot. It's very large and heavy and best read intensely in coffee shops so everyone sees you reading it. Remarkably, everyone reading it think that they are not one of the "looters," but everyone around them is. :D
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I shouldn't discourage you from reading it, moot. It's very large and heavy and best read intensely in coffee shops so everyone sees you reading it. Remarkably, everyone reading it think that they are not one of the "looters," but everyone around them is. :D
I personaly never felt superior read it. I certainly didn't carry it around and read it for 3 months just to impress people. Slow reader.
Not sure how you could know how people feel when reading it unless you can personaly relate. Was that the case Rolex?
Did all this happen to you when you read the book? With all the input about the book... you did READ it.. right?
-
:noid
-
Originally posted by moot
:noid
LOL I probably did sound like that.
There ARE people in this world that read for pleasure and not just for a false sense of status. Or to impress others by associating themselves with a certatin type of book. The concept is a little strange to me.. so I was wondering how Rolex could so easily brand people as being that way by reading THIS book. Reading a book should not label you as a "this or that"
-
It was just a little humor, mosgood. Any conversation about Atlas Shrugged could use a little shot of humor. I apologize if you took offense at my opinion of the thousand-page doorstop known as Atlas Shrugged. I hope you notice an ever-so-slight, humorous pattern developing here?
Okay, I'll be dour and serious. Yes, I read it about 35 years ago. I'm a writer, so I'm a reader. Yes, I have a branding license - I'm licensed in 12 states (including Ohio) to brand readers.
I urge everyone to read it. As a matter of fact, I urge everyone to read it three or four times. Out loud. I recommend listening to the 47-CD "book on tape" version while crisscrossing the continent on AmTrak. I urge people read it aloud while simultaneously watching the movie "Reds" over and over.
-
mosgood, i wouldn't worry much about the shallow dismissal, by one person, of a well regarded piece of writing. a lot of good writing is dismissed by people who are unable, for whatever reason, to take much from it.
-
Gunthr is obviously reading it right now, you can tell by the way Rolex' humor bounces right off.. :)
-
Originally posted by Rolex
It was just a little humor, mosgood. Any conversation about Atlas Shrugged could use a little shot of humor. I apologize if you took offense at my opinion of the thousand-page doorstop known as Atlas Shrugged. I hope you notice an ever-so-slight, humorous pattern developing here?
Okay, I'll be dour and serious. Yes, I read it about 35 years ago. I'm a writer, so I'm a reader. Yes, I have a branding license - I'm licensed in 12 states (including Ohio) to brand readers.
I urge everyone to read it. As a matter of fact, I urge everyone to read it three or four times. Out loud. I recommend listening to the 47-CD "book on tape" version while crisscrossing the continent on AmTrak. I urge people read it aloud while simultaneously watching the movie "Reds" over and over.
Even though you were teasing me with the above, I thought it was pretty damn funny(always compliment a writers work and they'll be as happy as a clam) ;)
I'm probaly just spoiling for a fight today. I'll lighten up. LOL
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I shouldn't discourage you from reading it, moot. It's very large and heavy and best read intensely in coffee shops so everyone sees you reading it. Remarkably, everyone reading it think that they are not one of the "looters," but everyone around them is. :D
I haven't read it but have read about to try to decide if I want to invest the time in reading it. This may be one of the few times I think us enough alike to judge my time better spent reading something else. :D
Anyone read this?
Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang
http://www.amazon.com/Endless-Universe-Beyond-Big-Bang/dp/0385509642
-
Gunthr is obviously reading it right now, you can tell by the way Rolex' humor bounces right off.. - moot
if that was humor, it was the most pompous and obscure form I've encountered...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I haven't read it but have read about to try to decide if I want to invest the time in reading it. This may be one of the few times I think us enough alike to judge my time better spent reading something else. :D
I'll be honest, but Atlas Shrugged was a little difficult to start. Ayn Rand's writing was a little different then what I was used to (penthouse forum), but once I got through the first 50 pages it became really enjoyable to read.
-
Gunthr, I think on this board some people's character gets lost in translation :)
-
Ok, Moot
-
moot.. I have seen enough things in my life that were being taught as scientific fact turn out to be interesting and.... wrong... theories.
I see no harm in mentioning in a science class that many believe in intelligent design and that there can be no proof. You don't really have to get into it.
History is also a good place to teach it...
Best tho is simply to take your children out of public school as Ayn would suggest I am sure and simply enroll them in private school. A little religion will not hurt em and they all make up their own minds in the end anyway.
A little religion can't hurt em but a little socialist public school most certainly can... it keeps em from learning.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moot.. I have seen enough things in my life that were being taught as scientific fact turn out to be interesting and.... wrong... theories.
I see no harm in mentioning in a science class that many believe in intelligent design and that there can be no proof. You don't really have to get into it.
History is also a good place to teach it...
Best tho is simply to take your children out of public school as Ayn would suggest I am sure and simply enroll them in private school. A little religion will not hurt em and they all make up their own minds in the end anyway.
A little religion can't hurt em but a little socialist public school most certainly can... it keeps em from learning.
lazs
or alternatively, parents can get up off of their lazy butts and take their kids to the sunday school of their choice and teach whatever ideas they wish and leave the rest of the population out of thier unrepeatable, unobservable, unscientific bent.
a little religion? and that stops where? no thanks ayatollah.
as for stopping learning...lets look at where the church denies that the earth revolves around the sun because it is too hard to shift gears as a good place to start looking to point out that religious dogma has no place in any culture who wishes to advance scientifically.
it's bunk.
i was reading an article last night where the intelligent design people are trying to get schools in kansas to teach "intelligent falling" as an alternative to"gravity". whatever people. pick up the clue phone.
-
This is why Creationism doesn't belong in a science class:
(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j275/LP211/trever_small.gif)
-
Lazs, the purpose of science is to provide a means to accurately understand and reliably predict things.
Just as political debate can get derailed into shallow name-calling such as the Repub vs. Demo polarizing has done, religion and science have been unduely pitted against one another.
There is no overlap between science and religion. As you've said yourself, faith is not about what's proven.
Anytime you are arguing things rationaly, you are doing "science". Anytime you build a hotrod, it is rational method that you follow to materialize your intentions.
The pitting of science against religion is artificial. It is a solution to the non-issue that some people believe exists, namely that having a realistic grasp of concrete reality, of understanding the mechanics of nature in full will somehow contradict religious ideas.
Only a misunderstanding of either science or religion can lead to this conclusion. It's very much a 1984-esque phenomenon that a spiritual authority (organised religion's powers that be) would oppose their flock enriching their understanding of our vast and awesome universe with the means of rational thought. The denial of such benign notions makes no sense if we're supposed to trust this religious authority as having our best interest at heart.
I don't think there's any harm mentionning ID in science class. I think the only responsible thing to say about ID is the truth, and the truth is that ID is a fraud. You can't honestly be teaching kids to do things that make sense, only to then teach them that a certain type of nonsense makes sense too. ID is as out of place in science class as are theories like flat-earthism, astrology, or phrenology.. "Pseudoscience".
History is definitely a good place to teach it. It has had an important enough role to play that it can't be ignored. In history class, it doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong but only that it happened, just as civil rights, Rosa Parks, or Waco happened.
Religion doesn't hurt children either, and here you should see how I agree: if you are in religion class, you shouldn't be teaching science... What's the point of that?
All I am arguing is that ID has its place neither in science or religion class... maybe in religion class, but personaly I don't think so: it's man-made, not the word of God. It's a golden calf.
-
Moot: At the risk of hijacking this thread, I believe you have accepted a strawman version of ID; hence your conflating it with Creationism. Remember that Science has it's dogmas too. The idea that the earth is at the center of the universe was scientific dogma, as well as a religious one. Indeed, without organized religion, we would not have science at all. Calling ID fraud is simply repeating the dogma of the current scientific majority, and can only stifle the advancement of science. I suggest you read some ID literature by pro-ID scientists before you simply parrot the proclaimations of those whose world view leaves no room for the possibility of design in nature. Darwinists have had free reign for several generations, publically funded indoctrination in our public schools and centers of higher learning, and have failed to convince even a simple majority of the American public that design in nature is an illusion.
ID and Creationism are not equal. Creationism starts with holy scripture (the Bible, specifically), and seeks to fit the evidence to it. ID starts with the scientific evidence, and seeks to determine if and when a design inference is warranted. It tries to define when chance and necessity are sufficient as an explaination, and where it proves inadequate, require intelligent input. It neither requires nor demands belief in the supernatural, or in any specific religious doctrine. Does it have philosophical implications? Yes, as does the pure materialism of Darwinian Evolution. Remember that initially the Big Bang Theory was vehemently opposed by many in the scientific establishment, as it went against a major tenant of scientific dogma of the day, to wit, that time and nature had not beginning, but always existed. Do things evolve? Within limits, yes. Can undirected chance and necessity account for all the complexity in nature, and for the fine-tuning of the universe? On the evidence, I would say "no."
As a starting place, I wouls suggest Dr. Mike Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box" as a good first step in understanding what ID is and isn't. Another one I found facinating was called "Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome", by Dr. John C. Sanford.
-
The only one rule I put below none other is causality. Darwin will (if he hasn't already been, IIRC he has) be refuted eventualy, it's only a matter of time.
Indeed, without organized religion, we would not have science at all.
That sounds bunk, but I'm open to proof..
and have failed to convince even a simple majority of the American public that design in nature is an illusion.
Neither statistics nor the masses are proof of validity.
Dogmatic science is a strawman too. The purpose of science is understanding the unknown, not dictating it.
The reasoning that led to an earth-centric model of the universe was flawed, and was refuted to its present iteration. This present iteration is most likely flawed too, and will be replaced too, in time. The science illustrated in this example is the process, not any single intermediate iteration. There is no absolute final conclusion, only an infinite tending towards one, paved with an infinity of improvements.
Science isn't the destination, it's the stairway to it.
ID is a fraud anytime it pretends to be science. Even supposing it was scientificaly correct, it serves no purpose because it answers no questions. It provides no further understanding beyond its dogmatic dead-end that everything is due to a magical Deus Ex, and therefore is of zero usefulness in man's technological progress.
Science isn't about stagnation, but that's all ID provides.
I can't comment on those books you refer to until I've actualy read them, so I definitely will give your suggestions a try; but ID as it's been explained to me is only partly rational, which is as good as entirely irrational.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Moot: At the risk of hijacking this thread, I believe you have accepted a strawman version of ID; hence your conflating it with Creationism. Remember that Science has it's dogmas too. The idea that the earth is at the center of the universe was scientific dogma, as well as a religious one. Indeed, without organized religion, we would not have science at all.
the earth-centric view of the universe was not "scientific" dogma. it was religious dogma being placed on top of a fledgling notion of "science". in this particular case the science of astronomy.
prior to that we basically had astrologers.
that is not to say that science hasnt gotten things wrong...but when it has it has been because it wasnt adhering to the basic tenants of science.
as for the "without organized religion we wouldnt have science" idea...
in another scenario, Columbus may have already made a voyage to mars if organized religion hadn't gotten in the way.
science and religion are seperate subjects with different ends and different means.
lets stick to the science.
-
i don't think ID is all that intelligent, look at the human body, we have to breath and swallow through the same pipe, can you say choke?
there are other mistakes of the body design that i can't mention on this board.:D
it is my opinion that the human body (and brain) were designed by a committee and rushed into production before all the bugs were worked out.
-
I'm reminded of the proof that God isn't an architect, namely that a competent architect wouldn't put the waste treatment plant next to the recreational area. :D
-
moot.. I am not sure I get your point even tho you were so kind as to put it into hot rod terms so that a poor ignorant guy like myself could understand.
When science teaches that there are many theories as to how the universe came to be.. what is wrong with mentioning intelligent design?
88.. I am not saying that you need to teach any particular religion in public school... I am saying that we need to give vouchers to people so that they don't have to subject their children to public school...
Given vouchers... most people... regardless of personal beliefes... would say as I do that... a little reiligion will not hurt little johnny or jane and jerk their spawn out of public school so fast and into a private or religious one that it will make marx spin in his grave.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moot.. I am not sure I get your point even tho you were so kind as to put it into hot rod terms so that a poor ignorant guy like myself could understand.
When science teaches that there are many theories as to how the universe came to be.. what is wrong with mentioning intelligent design?
88.. I am not saying that you need to teach any particular religion in public school... I am saying that we need to give vouchers to people so that they don't have to subject their children to public school...
Given vouchers... most people... regardless of personal beliefes... would say as I do that... a little reiligion will not hurt little johnny or jane and jerk their spawn out of public school so fast and into a private or religious one that it will make marx spin in his grave.
lazs
i have no problem with that, so long as all religious views are expressed as alternative theories. too bad it will take a year and a day to scratch that surface...and since when have christians, who are notorious for spreading "the word" so lackadaisical in their desire for others to bear witness to "the truth"? give an inch, someone is going to take a mile i say.
-
Moot:
I appreciate your willingness to research ID further. I believe a sincere effort and an open mind will lead you to reconsider absolute statements such as “ID is a fraud.” I suspect the person who explained ID to you was uninformed regarding ID, and was likely just repeating someone else’s strawman version of ID. As for what questions ID seeks to answer, they are the same questions mainstream evolutionary theory seeks to answer. It can and does make testable predictions. More than that, ID is a paradigm through which scientific research can be carried out. Indeed, the idea that the universe and everything in it were designed was a guiding principle of science from its beginning (an idea promoted by the Catholic Church and its off-shoots, and kept alive through the dark ages by it). It was this paradigm that led early thinkers to assume that nature would be law-driven, and that it could thus be described mathematically. It was an underlying belief of most of the great historical figures of science, both before Darwin and even after him.
We use design detection methods in many fields of science today (forensics, archeology, cryptography). ID simply seeks to apply those same techniques to biology and cosmology. After ruling out chance and necessity, intelligent causation is a logical alternative to consider. It does not stop science any more than knowing that a piece of unfamiliar technology is designed would stop a person from attempting to understand how it works or how it was designed. Neither is it necessary to know who the designer is in order to arrive at a design inference. It seems to me that ruling out a possible explanation a priori is dogmatic, and certainly more damaging to science.
As for the “bad-design equals no design” argument, this is a logical fallacy. It presumes to know the original design specifications (we certainly don’t), assumes the nature of the designer (that he/she/it was infallible) and assumes that the design is unchanged since the prototype. You see, ID does not claim that evolution (change over time) does not occur, only that it has limits to what it can do. It is generally characterized by a loss of information (degeneration), and rarely if ever results in significant improvements. The bad-design argument ignores the distinction between “perfect design” and “optimum design.” As any engineer will tell you (and I are one), every system is a collection of compromises that, if done well leads to an optimum design. If you could change the environment it will operate in (alter the laws of nature, for instance) or perhaps isolate it from affects of interconnected systems, you could possibly arrive at a “perfect” design, but that is rarely practical.
-
The problem I have with ID is that it applies an inherently theological answer to a scientific problem. Proper science is like dominoes, everything that happens should have A Cause, and that should have something that preceded it. ID, on the other hand, adds an alternate answer to each question: "Because god said so". Just because an ID proponent describes ID as science doesn't mean it actually _is_ that.
If your child was taking a science class, and the correct answer to every question was "Because God wants it that way" or "Because God did it", they would be religious intact and would be giving answers that satisfy doctrine, but it wouldn't prepare them for a career as a doctor, engineer, etc. Would you feel they were being served well by their educator?
ID is an attempt to slip "Because of God" into science, and it just doesn't belong there. Religion and Science are like oil and water, neither is served when the other interferes.
-
I went out to my car this morning and while driving to work I realized that understanding a little about how my car works explains perfectly that no one built it. It just happend..
-
Sabre,
ID as I understand it is definitely fraudulent science because it infers intentions from something it knows nothing about (God/Designer's hand). Science is about provable theory, and God's hand is nothing provable.
It seems to me that ruling out a possible explanation a priori is dogmatic
As I said above, the only thing I take as dogma is causality. I am suspicious of ID because it seems to sometimes do without causality.
Anyway, I will read those two books.
It was this paradigm that led early thinkers to assume that nature would be law-driven, and that it could thus be described mathematically. It was an underlying belief of most of the great historical figures of science, both before Darwin and even after him.
The first thinkers to willfuly apply scientific methods were probably apes like those at the monolith's foot in Clarke's Space Odyseey:
Fist hard. Skull harder than fist.
Bone sturdy. Bone sturdier than skull.
Bone held by fist = bang? (vague idea) Bone held by fist = bang! (practical test) > Eureka!
Lazs,
tho you were so kind as to put it into hot rod terms so that a poor ignorant guy like myself could understand.
:lol You must be kidding :) In fact I could make a pretty good hotrod allegory, but it would take too long to get just right and the point I meant to make is one we both already know.
-
That our universe came to be by intelligent design is imo as scientifically viable as believing it to simply be of it's own accord. It at least deserves a mention even in science class.