Definitely part of the problem, but more the part where everyone wants to be fed easily digestible and entertaining facts, and not only that but they cant be something that has been exclusively covered in the past so it has to be revolutionary AND entertaining.
Pop reference
- Thread starter ZRH
- Start date
Syrup Beaver
pants log
Wikipedia is great for learning things or mislearning things. As with almost anything you should check information against a few unrelated sources.
So I thought about this and could only agree. We've gotten to a point where people have thrown intellectual curiosity, logic, and reason out the window. So the question is now that the problem has been identified, how do you solve it?
Syrup Beaver
pants log
Well in my mind, the problem boils down to pure laziness.
By and large, people are too lazy to do the right thing in many aspects of their lives, can't expect them to suddenly be able to do their own weighing of the facts and consider the source of information.
Its more than just that. People seem to revel in their own ignorance and mock those that try to better themselves.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
That's a disturbing trend, I think it could be a front for covering their own inadequacies. Like the old bit about the playground bully being the one with self-esteem issues.
But you see what I mean now. It's any single item, its a confluence of things.
I agree with FG too, but how do you know what references to trust? Most of our silly thoughts are based on what we 'feel' is right.
So maybe we all should not argue to begin with because more than likely we are all wrong.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
Unless what they're covering for is their laziness.
But no, I see what you mean. Mrs. Chikken and her cousin recently did the breast cancer 3-day walk - Mrs. Chikken's cousin was made fun of by her friends (The mocking you speak of) for doing it.
Now why on earth would you mock someone for doing THAT?
Syrup Beaver
pants log
This is why you don't see much of the old me anymoreSo maybe we all should not argue to begin with because more than likely we are all wrong.
I think you might want to quickly qualify what you mean by "creationist". If you just mean you think God started it all, fine whatever. If you mean ID and the world is only 4000 years old ... uh ... wow.
One point that seems to escape both sides of evolutionists and creationists are the theory and the story aren't necessarily in conflict. No where does evolution even provide a slight notion of how life started, only how it develops after it started.
Now teaching creationism (ID or whatever) as science is fucking brain dead.
Considering my father graduated from UT with a degree in geology. He would kick my ass if I believed that the earth is only thousands of years old.
However I also don't believe in macro evolution.