The Narnia Code

[Mike375]

Why? The tooth fairy pays better and is at least as real

Either way.......tooth fairy or God.......You are the one that has suggested science should be removed.

 

[Mike375]

PS

And so we don't lose track here:

but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics

 

[Rabbie]

Either way.......tooth fairy or God.......You are the one that has suggested science should be removed.

Mike, Once again you distort what I said. As I said to Dan-cat that is a very dishonest tactic and is unworthy even of you. I have never been anti-science as you well know. The point I was making and which I now feel I must spell out for you to remove any ambiguities is that you don't need to know how something works in order to use it. You don't need to to know why it works. I don't know the technical details of how my PC works but I do know how to program it.

Stop twisting things round in a dishonest way.

 

[Rabbie]

PS

And so we don't lose track here:

but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics

And your point is??? Perhaps you think a 5 year old can learn advanced theory? I did not say he shouldn't learn ballistics - I just suggested it might be better to wait until he was ready to do so.

Learn to walk before you learn to run. learn to read before you learn science. Seems sensible to me but if you can't grasp that I give up hope for you.

 

[Mike375]

Yes but you still don't need the science. Of course the science is useful - if it wasn't why would we bother.

I can teach my 5 year old grandson to throw and catch but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics

I can only work on what you say.

 

[Rabbie]

I can only work on what you say.

This what I said

And your point is??? Perhaps you think a 5 year old can learn advanced theory? I did not say he shouldn't learn ballistics - I just suggested it might be better to wait until he was ready to do so.

Learn to walk before you learn to run. learn to read before you learn science. Seems sensible to me but if you can't grasp that I give up hope for you.

perhaps you should not draw unwarranted conclusions in your (failed) attempts to appear clever. If you Insurance selling is as honest as your posts here then I pity your clients

 

[Rich]

If you Insurance selling is as honest as your posts here then I pity your clients

Since when has any insurance salesman been honest, they of course would just claim to be economical with the truth?

 

[JamesLast99]

Since when has any insurance salesman been honest, they of course would just claim to be economical with the truth?

It was around the time the gas engineer came round on the day he was needed and charged a reasonable fee.A long time ago - anyway.

 

[Mike375]

Why do atheists break down and get personal. It is the same on the Atheist Foundation of Australia site.

Rabbie, if you can't deal with what you said, then stick to the Access forums of the site.

So I assume from you last post you never said:


And your point is??? Perhaps you think a 5 year old can learn advanced theory? I did not say he shouldn't learn ballistics - I just suggested it might be better to wait until he was ready to do so.

Learn to walk before you learn to run. learn to read before you learn science. Seems sensible to me but if you can't grasp that I give up hope for you.

 

[Mike375]

Since when has any insurance salesman been honest, they of course would just claim to be economical with the truth?

I thought you were above following someone......Rabbie wants to deny what he wrote. Simple.

But you follow and obviously agree.

 

[Rabbie]

Why do atheists break down and get personal. It is the same on the Atheist Foundation of Australia site.

Rabbie, if you can't deal with what you said, then stick to the Access forums of the site.

So I assume from you last post you never said:


And your point is??? Perhaps you think a 5 year old can learn advanced theory? I did not say he shouldn't learn ballistics - I just suggested it might be better to wait until he was ready to do so.

Learn to walk before you learn to run. learn to read before you learn science. Seems sensible to me but if you can't grasp that I give up hope for you.

Of course I said it. You couldn't have quoted it if I hadn't. You still seem reluctant to answer my question. How does a reluctance to teach Science at an advanced level to a five year old equate to a rejection of science? I am quite frankly baffled by your thought processes in reaching this conclusion. Perhaps you can explain.

 

[Mike375]

Rabbie never said:

"Yes but you still don't need the science. Of course the science is useful - if it wasn't why would we bother.

I can teach my 5 year old grandson to throw and catch but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics"

__________________________________________________

Yes but you still don't need the science. Of course the science is useful - if it wasn't why would we bother.

I can teach my 5 year old grandson to throw and catch but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics

Is there any mis quoting in the above?

 

[dan-cat]

Why do atheists break down and get personal. It is the same on the Atheist Foundation of Australia site.

I agree that the comments regarding dishonesty and distortion are unnecessary and simply untrue.

 

[Mike375]

Of course I said it. You couldn't have quoted it if I hadn't.

Simple. Just relax.

 

[Alc]

I come in on North American time and find that Austrlia and Europe has move the conversatiuon on at a fair rate.

First, Paul, hope the hot date went well.

Now, just to clarify what I was saying - since I don't appear to have been as clear as I intended: I wasn't saying that people don't need to understand stuff. In the example I gave, I was saying that - initially, at least - all that was required was that people knew that certain things happened if they did certain other things. As long as this was the case, there was no need to know how or why they happened. Sure, some people may have wondered, but the need to know didn't exist. If it was inherent to humans as a whole, it would have existed.

As humanity progressed, people had more time to contemplate such things. Some peope started to question how these things happened (in the example, gravity). Some people questioned why they happened. Not everybody did both, and a lot did neither. Again, if the need to know was inherent in human nature, everyone would have been curious.

Cut to present day. We have a far better understanding of how many things work, and of how, from a practical perspective. An awful lot of people feel a need to determine an answer to why they happen, but at least as many are happy to accept that there is no 'why'. Once again, if the need to find a 'why' was inherent to humans, we would all be looking for the answer and we wouldn't be having this conversation now. I don't believe there's a 'why'. Am I the only human lacking this gene or whatever it is?

I have never said that nobody wants to find out the reasons behind things, just that a lot of people don't. I was arguing against the idea that we all somehow have to look for a reason behind events, just because we're human. We don't.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Mike, saying that a 5 year old may not be ready to learn ballistics isn't removing science.

 

[dan-cat]

I remember being told by an electronics lecturer many years ago whilst he was explaining reactance’s etc and ohms law, not to get too bogged down with theories and to leave that part to "the clever people", just accept that it does what it does, much easier

This was the point I was querying with Alc. It's much easier not to get 'bogged' down with the details so more things get done. Alc suggested that our brains are evolved this way for that same reason.

I was querying the possibility that getting bogged down with the details (ie. Quantum Physics) could possibly be disruptive in some way in this context.

 

[Rabbie]

I thought you were above following someone......Rabbie wants to deny what he wrote. Simple.

I did not deny anything I had said. I objected to your dishonest interpretation of it. If you behave in a dishonest manner to me (as you have done) then don't get upset if I suggest you might treat your clients in a similar manner.

 

[Mike375]

Mike, saying that a 5 year old may not be ready to learn ballistics isn't removing science.

So what does Rabbie tell the 5 year old?

 

[dan-cat]

I was arguing against the idea that we all somehow have to look for a reason behind events, just because we're human. We don't.

...and I say that we generally do when the events don't meet our expectations hence popularity of religion