While most believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old based upon the scientific evidence available, there are a significant number of people who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.
Here is a logical thought exercise that might solve this difference.
If there is a God who has existed forever, then time surely has a different meaning for this God than it does for humans. Perhaps this God thinks in terms of a million years for every year that we experience.
The bible was interpreted and translated in terms that humans understood, so many things were expressed in terms of the then current understandings of humans. At the time the Bible was written, anything longer than 6000 years in human understanding probably seemed impossible or even incomprehensible. So while God was thinking in terms of "God years" ie: almost a million years for every "Human year", it was interpreted or translated by humans to mean "Human years".
Considering there are over 400 translations of the Bible and still endless controversy about the exact interpretation of various passages, it seems that the above interpretation of the time difference is logically possible.
So, time can still be called 6000 years (but understood as God years) and thus be consistent with the Bible and scientific evidence.
Simple eh?
Saturday 10 October 2015
Sunday 22 March 2015
Follow The Money
War and terrorism cost a lot of money. The current conflicts in the Ukraine and Syria and numerous African countries, not to mention the terrorism of ISO, requires huge sums of money to buy weapons and to maintain fighters.
None of these countries produce their own weapons so they are buying them from someone. Globally, the following 5 countries manufacture and sell most of the weapons used in the world today: USA, Russia, Britain, China, and India. Military weapons is a multi-billion dollar business, so there are many who have a vested interest in seeing conflict in the world.
If the NSA can track billions of emails and phone calls, it seems reasonable to assume they either do or could track the flow of money around the world. If Edward Snowden has information about this, its release could stir up more controversy and public concern than the privacy issues already divulged.
Perhaps if we had more transparency of the movement of money and arms, it might not be quite so easy for those who are fueling these conflicts with either weapons or money (or both) to do so in the future.
Perhaps if the United Nations passed regulation that made those countries who supply arms or money to armed conflicts responsible for the rebuilding of the country or area once the conflict has ended. This would be paid proportional to the amount of arms / money provided. The cost of restoration would be made public as a running total on a real time basis. Then the public of each nation supporting such conflicts would see what it is really costing them. Perhaps the profits of the arms producers might not look so rosy with such costs factored in.
Of course, it is wishful thinking to believe that either of these things would ever happen. Maybe some creative person(s) might simulate such a running total on a website somewhere.
None of these countries produce their own weapons so they are buying them from someone. Globally, the following 5 countries manufacture and sell most of the weapons used in the world today: USA, Russia, Britain, China, and India. Military weapons is a multi-billion dollar business, so there are many who have a vested interest in seeing conflict in the world.
If the NSA can track billions of emails and phone calls, it seems reasonable to assume they either do or could track the flow of money around the world. If Edward Snowden has information about this, its release could stir up more controversy and public concern than the privacy issues already divulged.
Perhaps if we had more transparency of the movement of money and arms, it might not be quite so easy for those who are fueling these conflicts with either weapons or money (or both) to do so in the future.
Perhaps if the United Nations passed regulation that made those countries who supply arms or money to armed conflicts responsible for the rebuilding of the country or area once the conflict has ended. This would be paid proportional to the amount of arms / money provided. The cost of restoration would be made public as a running total on a real time basis. Then the public of each nation supporting such conflicts would see what it is really costing them. Perhaps the profits of the arms producers might not look so rosy with such costs factored in.
Of course, it is wishful thinking to believe that either of these things would ever happen. Maybe some creative person(s) might simulate such a running total on a website somewhere.
Tuesday 17 February 2015
A Remedy for Comments
Many mainline news organizations and other sites are removing the "Comments" section from their websites since they are being abused. Here are a few thoughts on how to remedy this. In fact, this could work for social media sites like Facebook as well.
- Filter all comments and separate those who are from anonymous senders. The one negative to this is that some anonymous senders are legitimate in the sense they might feel at risk if they bring out what they feel is an injustice at work, school, other places in society. Given that a large number of anonymous comments are abusive it does make sense to put such comments in a section on there own. To be clear, they are still allowed to make comments, however readers are not forced to wade through comments to find those made by people who are willing to be accountable for their comments.
- Make it mandatory for everyone to self assess their own comments before it is accepted using the following ratings: Pro, Neutral, Con
- Also make it mandatory for everyone to self assess their own comments before it is accepted using the following ratings: Respectful, Mostly Respectful, Somewhat Abusive, Abusive
- Then set it up so that others can rate each of these self ratings using the following scale: Accurate, So-So, Not Accurate
- Allow readers to sort comments by these filters.
Then readers could easily avoid comments that are abusive. They could also avoid comments by those who have a poor accuracy rating on the abusive scale.
For the sake of freedom of speech, anonymous and disrespectful comments would be still allowed, but people would also have the freedom to choose not to be consumers of such media. As it stands now, it is almost impossible to avoid. A process such as the above would facilitate that freedom to avoid disrespectful and abusive media or at the very least to consume it in a manner in which one has some control.
For the sake of freedom of speech, anonymous and disrespectful comments would be still allowed, but people would also have the freedom to choose not to be consumers of such media. As it stands now, it is almost impossible to avoid. A process such as the above would facilitate that freedom to avoid disrespectful and abusive media or at the very least to consume it in a manner in which one has some control.
If these Accuracy ratings could be attached to the commenter and be available to any comment they make in any comment section or on any social media, like a badge of honour or dishonour as it may be, then the system would soon become self selecting.
The Long View:
Of course, in the long run, the solution is to develop a culture of respect. This is a cultural change which can actually start with our youth. As an adult, I am ashamed and apologize for the culture of disrespect that has developed all around you, our youth. You see in the media, with politicians, in schools, on the Internet, and in just about every aspect of our society including religion. It is no wonder that you, our youth, pick up on it too. The youth of the world, you have more capability to change things than you may realize. You can start a "revolution of respect".
Of course, in the long run, the solution is to develop a culture of respect. This is a cultural change which can actually start with our youth. As an adult, I am ashamed and apologize for the culture of disrespect that has developed all around you, our youth. You see in the media, with politicians, in schools, on the Internet, and in just about every aspect of our society including religion. It is no wonder that you, our youth, pick up on it too. The youth of the world, you have more capability to change things than you may realize. You can start a "revolution of respect".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)