The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 12-01-2014 10:05PM

brian_t wrote: »

Michael Tigges

Proves what I have said ... that NASA is an equal opportuities employer ... and Michael Tigges is just one of the Creationists
benefiting from this equality.:)

Delirium · 12-01-2014 10:07PM

J C wrote: »

We can speculate forever ... but, for the sake of argument, if some employer claimed that they had no employees from a faith group representing 46% of the population, simply because nobody from that faith group ever applied to join their organistion ... then the reasons why is happening would need to be explained ... and barring a very good objective reason ... such a situation would be prima facie evidence of a culture of hostility towards the faith community from the employers organisation ... which would also be against anti-discrimination law.

Of course, none of this exists in NASA ... and that is why I believe that roughly 46% of their employees are Creationists.

It your biases that are coming out here ... and not NASA's.

So you are just guessing and not basing it on actual beliefs of employees of NASA.

bumper234 · 12-01-2014 10:08PM

J C wrote: »

We can speculate forever ... but, for the sake of argument, if some employer claimed that they had no employees from a faith group representing 46% of the population, simply because nobody from the faith group ever applied to join their organistion ... then the reasons why is happening would need to be explained ... and barring a very good objective reason ... such a situation would be prima facie evidence of a culture of hostility towards the faith community from the employers organisation ... which would also be against anti-discrimination law.

Of course, none of this exists in NASA ... and that is why I believe that roughly 46% of their employees are Creationists.

It your biases that are coming out here ... and not NASA's.

But an all pork abbatoir would have no Muslim employees because they wouldn't want to work there, maybe the major majority of creationists don't wish to work at NASA!

You believing that 46% of NASA's employees are creationists and the actual number of creationists working for NASA are 2 different things. Anyway you made the claim and you have refused (as usual) to back up your claims with any facts whatsoever.

Delirium · 12-01-2014 10:08PM

J C wrote: »

Proves what I have said ... that NASA is an equal opportuities employer ... and Michael Tigges is just one of the Creationists
benefiting from this equality.:)

No it doesn't. You claimed that many scientists are creationists at NASA. One is not many.

J C · 12-01-2014 10:15PM

bumper234 wrote: »

50% of the population are women, how many are priests, bishops, popes? The catholic church discriminates against women will you be calling for them to be sued and closed down under anti discrimination laws?

They are a religious organisation.
Presently, anti-discrimination law doesn't extent to the internal governance within religious organisations ... and this applies to all religions (both Christian and non-Christian) ... and thus it is religiously 'neutral'.

bumper234 · 12-01-2014 10:20PM

J C wrote: »

They are a religious organisation.
Presently, anti-discrimination law doesn't extent to the internal governance within religious organisations ... and this applies to all religions ... and thus it is religiously 'equal'.

Conveniently that religion can discriminate against 50% of the population but then it's in the bible that women are 2nd class citizen's so I would hardly expect it's followers to think any differently.

J C · 12-01-2014 10:24PM

bumper234 wrote: »

But an all pork abbatoir would have no Muslim employees because they wouldn't want to work there, maybe the major majority of creationists don't wish to work at NASA!

All Muslims have a religious objection to pork ... and Creationism has no religious objection to NASA. On this basis, we wouldn't expect to see any Muslims killing pigs ... and we would expect to see roughly 46% of the employees in NASA to be Creationists ... and that's probably the case.

bumper234 wrote: »

You believing that 46% of NASA's employees are creationists and the actual number of creationists working for NASA are 2 different things. Anyway you made the claim and you have refused (as usual) to back up your claims with any facts whatsoever.

... its a bit like me believing that roughly 84% of the employees in any equal opportunities organisation in Ireland are likely to be self-professed Roman Catholics ... and 0.1% to be self-professed Atheists ... in line with the respective percentages in the most recent Census.

J C · 12-01-2014 10:29PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Conveniently that religion can discriminate against 50% of the population but then it's in the bible that women are 2nd class citizen's so I would hardly expect it's followers to think any differently.

Women are not second class citizens within Christianity ... and many churches ordain women ... even up to the rank of bishop.

... when it comes to religion ... you pays your money ... and you takes your choice.

bumper234 · 12-01-2014 10:32PM

J C wrote: »

Women are not second class citizens within Christianity ... and many churches ordain women ... even up to the rank of bishop.

... when it comes to religion ... you pays your money ... and you takes your choice.

Yeah money.

Money is the root of all evil right?

Yet EVERY Christian religion insists on asking for it constantly.

J C · 12-01-2014 10:42PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Yeah money.

Money is the root of all evil right?

Yet EVERY Christian religion insists on asking for it constantly.

I obviously was using a 'turn of phrase' implying choice (and voting with your feet/money) in matters of religion. If you don't like a particular religion (Christian or non-Christian) you don't have to support it financially or otherwise.

... and it is the love of money that is the root of all evil.

Money itself is morally neutral ... it is what we use it for that can be good or evil.
Money 'makes the world go around' ... and we all have an obligation to acquire money to pay our bills ... and that applies to all organisations, and not just Christian Churches.

J C · 12-01-2014 10:51PM

SW wrote: »

So you are just guessing and not basing it on actual beliefs of employees of NASA.

That makes two of us guessing ... I'm assuming that NASA is an equal opportunities employer ... what are you assuming it to be?

Delirium · 12-01-2014 10:55PM

J C wrote: »

That makes two of us guessing ... I'm assuming that NASA is an equal opportunities employer ... what are you assuming it to be?

You state that approx 46% of staff are creationists. And you refuse to provide evidence to support the claim. You're just moving the goalposts by introducing the equal opportunities tangent.

J C · 12-01-2014 11:00PM

SW wrote: »

You state that approx 46% of staff are creationists. And you refuse to provide evidence to support the claim. You're just moving the goalposts by introducing the equal opportunities tangent.

It's not a tangent, it's a reasonable assumption ... and I've been using it since this section of the debate (on NASA and Creationists) started.

Delirium · 12-01-2014 11:07PM

J C wrote: »

It's not a tangent, it's a reasonable assumption ... and I've been using it since this section of the debate (on NASA and Creationists) started.

46% of population does not lead to 46% of employees in a company. But thanks for clarifying that it's just an assumption rather than factual.

J C · 12-01-2014 11:12PM

SW wrote: »

46% of population does not lead to 46% of employees in a company. But thanks for clarifying that it's just an assumption rather than factual.

A reasonable assumption (based on the fact that 46% of the American population are Creationists and NASA is an equal opportuities employer) is indeed a factual and valid assumption ... unless you know otherwise?

bumper234 · 12-01-2014 11:13PM

J C wrote: »

A reasonable assumption (based on the fact that 46% of the American population are Creationists and NASA is an equal opportuities employer) is indeed a factual and valid assumption ... unless you know otherwise.

50% of the population are women so you say 50% of all employees of all companies should be women?

Delirium · 12-01-2014 11:23PM

J C wrote: »

A reasonable assumption (based on the fact that 46% of the American population are Creationists and NASA is an equal opportuities employer) is indeed a factual and valid assumption ... unless you know otherwise.

It is not factual as you've not provided any data to support your assumption.

Unless some sort of quota system is in place in NASA, there's no possible way you could know that 46% of the staff are creationists.

Safehands · 12-01-2014 11:27PM

J C wrote: »

A reasonable assumption (based on the fact that 46% of the American population are Creationists and NASA is an equal opportuities employer) is indeed a factual and valid assumption ... unless you know otherwise.

I can just imagine an interview for a scientist with NASA. The job entails designing a spacecraft to explore the outer reaches of our galaxy, with intricate mathematical formulas to be used. The interviewer asks how would the applicant propose designing a craft which can perhaps explore stars which may be a million light years away, maybe using a revolutionary new propulsion system which may make that task more feasible. The applicant says "well actually, the universe is actually only ten thousand years old, maximum". Really Mr Applicant, and how did you work that out? "The bible says it therefore its true".
Don't call us we'll call you. Good day to you, thanks for applying. Say hello to Michael Tigges, our office cleaner, on the way out.

J C · 12-01-2014 11:27PM

bumper234 wrote: »

50% of the population are women so you say 50% of all employees of all companies should be women?

In an ideal world it should be (and hopefully will be in the future) ... but there are many reasons why it isn't (things like the choices that some women make, as well as the legacy of discrimination and cultural attitudes against women being in certain professions, which still have to work through, in some cases) ... and it cuts both ways ... with women predominating in some professions, like general nursing, for example.
In some cases, positive discrimination may even be required to expedite matters.

None of this applies to something like Creationism, which is a faith position held by both men and women.
The point is, if an employer is behaving as an equal opportunities employer, then you would expect the 'faith profile' of their workforce to be broadly reflective of 'faith profile' of the society in which they operate ... this would be the working assumption ... and if it doesn't, valid objective (and non-discriminatory) reasons would need to be provided to explain why.

Delirium · 12-01-2014 11:30PM

bumper234 wrote: »

50% of the population are women so you say 50% of all employees of all companies should be women?

indeed. following JCs assumptions, 27.3% of the staff should be under the age of 20%

J C · 12-01-2014 11:34PM

SW wrote: »

indeed. following JCs assumptions, 27.3% of the staff should be under the age of 20%

Age is a valid reason to discriminate as it applies to everybody ... and many jobs have valid minimum and/or maximum age limits.

Nothing to do with equal opportunities employment legislation ... please try again!!!:):D

Safehands · 12-01-2014 11:41PM

J C wrote: »

Age is a valid reason to discriminate as it applies to everybody ... and many jobs have valid minimum and/or maximum age limits.

Nothing to do with equal opportunities employment legislation ... please try again!!!:):D

This has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. Its got to do with facts, provable facts that be substantiated by scientific experimentation. If an employee is shown a star and is told 'That star is 20 million years old' and he says 'No its not, it is actually ten thousand years old, and the bible told me that' It would not be discrimination when he is told to clear his desk. It would be justifiable dismissal on the grounds of stupidity.

Delirium · 12-01-2014 11:52PM

J C wrote: »

Age is a valid reason to discriminate as it applies to everybody ... and many jobs have valid minimum and/or maximum age limits.

Nothing to do with equal opportunities employment legislation ... please try again!!!:):D

ok, so 27.3% of the 46% are disqualified by being too young.

so the percentage you should be using would be % of population that are creationists over 25. Or are you going to say that is also 46%?

What percentage of creationists have the appropriate college education?

J C · 12-01-2014 11:54PM

Safehands wrote: »

This has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. Its got to do with facts, provable facts that be substantiated by scientific experimentation. If an employee is shown a star and is told 'That star is 20 million years old' and he says 'No its not, it is actually ten thousand years old, and the bible told me that' It would not be discrimination when he is told to clear his desk. It would be justifiable dismissal on the grounds of stupidity.

That's not how it works ... the employee, irrespective of his/her faith position does their job (as determined by their employer) to the best of their abilities with their faith left out of the equation.
In an event, NASA's work covers a wide range of activities - and whether one believes that the universe is 10,000 or 10 billion years old, doesn't affect how you construct a rocket or measure the distance to a star, in accordance with procedures and current scientific assumptions ... or indeed what you do as an astronaut on a space station.

J C · 12-01-2014 11:58PM

SW wrote: »

ok, so 27.3% of the 46% are disqualified by being too young.

so the percentage you should be using would be % of population that are creationists over 25. Or are you going to say that is also 46%?

Yes ... because its the percentage of the cohort over 25 that we're actually talking about ... and belief in Creationism is roughly similar across the age cohorts ... and if anything, higher in the over 25s.

SW wrote: »

What percentage of creationists have the appropriate college education?

Probably the same % as the rest of the population.

Safehands · 13-01-2014 12:08AM

J C wrote: »

That's not how it works ... the employee, irrespective of his/her faith position does their job (as determined by their employer) to the best of their abilities with their faith left out of the equation.
In an event, NASA's work covers a wide range of activities - and whether one believes that the universe is 10,000 or 10 billion years old, doesn't affect how you construct a rocket or measure the distance of a star in accordance with procedures and current scientific assumptions ... or indeed what you do as a astronaut on a space station.

Of course its how it works. If you need to trust an employees judgement to carry out critical tasks, you cannot have them demonstrate their inability to understand basic scientific facts, not assumptions, about the makeup of the universe.
The Bible may be a great piece of literature but it has very little scientific credibility.
There are stars out there which are millions of years old. If a scientist dealing with the space programme and the exploration of such stars doesn't agree with that, he needs to get a new career.

J C · 13-01-2014 12:58AM

Safehands wrote: »

Of course its how it works. If you need to trust an employees judgement to carry out critical tasks, you cannot have them demonstrate their inability to understand basic scientific facts, not assumptions, about the makeup of the universe.
The Bible may be a great piece of literature but it has very little scientific credibility.
There are stars out there which are millions of years old. If a scientist dealing with the space programme and the exploration of such stars doesn't agree with that, he needs to get a new career.

S/he doesn't need to get a new career ... no more than an Atheist should suffer job discrimination, for their beliefs, from an equal opportunities employer either.

Please stop confusing the faith-based beliefs (of both Atheists and Christians) with real-world work!!!
... and advocating sectarian based discrimination ... against nearly half of the American population ... who fund these very organisations!!!:eek:

Darkly hinting that you cannot trust somebody 'from the other side' ... is the standard 'stock in trade' of the average bigot ... please stop engaging in such stuff against Creationists.

J C · 13-01-2014 01:13AM

Safehands wrote: »

Of course its how it works. If you need to trust an employees judgement to carry out critical tasks, you cannot have them demonstrate their inability to understand basic scientific facts, not assumptions, about the makeup of the universe.
The Bible may be a great piece of literature but it has very little scientific credibility.
There are stars out there which are millions of years old. If a scientist dealing with the space programme and the exploration of such stars doesn't agree with that, he needs to get a new career.

... so are you actually saying that if NASA isn't already ... it should be, a 'no go area' for Creationists ... whose tax dollars pay nearly half the salaries there?:(

... and who next, would you like to clear their desks and go take a hike ??
... old earth creationists ... or simply anybody who 'irrationally' (from an Atheist's perspective) believes in God?

J C · 13-01-2014 01:58AM

Safehands wrote: »

I can just imagine an interview for a scientist with NASA. The job entails designing a spacecraft to explore the outer reaches of our galaxy, with intricate mathematical formulas to be used. The interviewer asks how would the applicant propose designing a craft which can perhaps explore stars which may be a million light years away, maybe using a revolutionary new propulsion system which may make that task more feasible. The applicant says "well actually, the universe is actually only ten thousand years old, maximum". Really Mr Applicant, and how did you work that out? "The bible says it therefore its true".
Don't call us we'll call you. Good day to you, thanks for applying. Say hello to Michael Tigges, our office cleaner, on the way out.

This is a total self-serving caricature.

As has already been pointed out to you, Creationists share your belief that the Universe is vast ... and distances of thousands of millions of light years are involved to the farthest observable reaches of the Universe.
In any event, the business of NASA doesn't involve producing craft capable of approaching the speed of light ... but even if it did, I fail to see how the faith beliefs of a Creationist would put him/her at any disadvantage versus an Atheist when it would come to putting such a machine together.

Safehands · 13-01-2014 11:03PM

J C wrote: »

This is a total self-serving caricature.
As has already been pointed out to you, Creationists share your belief that the Universe is vast ... and distances of thousands of millions of light years are involved to the farthest observable reaches of the Universe.

Billions of light years, is not only distance, it enables us to age the planet at billions of years old.
Has reality finally struck home????

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments