Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6729welcome new members

Expand Messages
  • mike white
    Jun 5, 2005
       
         plz welcome the four new members this week.  each has something to contribute, so feel free to post.  i sent out some invitations to archaeologists and other experts, but not sure if they are among the new members. 
         scan the archives for a better idea of the range of discussion thus far, and for a thread that interests you. 
         current topics, particularly mine, have wandered further afield than normal. 
         its impossible to make progress in epigraphy, and history, without expanding out from scripts and languages, to have a background study in world religions, be up on geology and disasters, to be able to discern the likely place of origin, and period.  a study of the classics helps a great deal.  however, there are times that we need to hear from the experts and academics, on the questions that arise within the field of their expertise.  sure, we may disagree, but a calm discussion without debate, might benefit all. 
         the practice of arriving at a concensus of opinion among professionals has some shortcomings.  it tends to stamp out independent thinking, and discourages one from challenging accepted notions.  it becomes slow to change, and feels it necessary to ostracize and destroy any who suggest that certain conceptions may be in error. 
         as if we must choose between evolution or creationism.  both of these are tired old theories, that some cannot accept in their entirety.  both are part right, part wrong.  lets look at the full literature, and the full record of nature, and discuss freely the possibilities and likelihood. 
         some entire sciences are based on fallacies.  like the earth retains heat in its core from the creation 6 billion years ago.  there are hundreds of such examples that have muddled science and history.  its time that other voices be heard, and break thru the glass ceiling of credentials and peer review.  i think a fool with a rich family could obtain the highest degrees.  should we always accept theories based on the strength of credentials?  in peer review, the weight of credibility again relates to degrees, wealth, position, and power.  i dont think that God uses these criteria in determining who receives certain talents. 
         professionals should police themselves.  when a member makes a nasty personal attack on another who has suggested a different possibility, or proposed a new theory - that member should be sanctioned, or reprimanded.  the sciences and professional concensus should be free to grow and change when better ideas are brought forth.  they should be ashamed that they all tend to agree on everything.  what does that do to creativity and original thought?  i wish the true scientists would speak out against obvious fallacies that are being perpetuated unchallenged. 
       
       
      Kind regards,
      Mike White
      http://all-ez.com/yahoo-groups.htm
       
       
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic