EPTHe didn't say it isn't. He was saying that the Tea Party people are going to attack him for that.
Tea Party wins primary in Delaware - Page 30
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
He didn't say it isn't. He was saying that the Tea Party people are going to attack him for that. | ||
|
Beef Noodles
United States937 Posts
If you are a republican, liberals say you are racist and ignorant If you are a democrat, republicans say you are stupid, corrupt, and power hungry Can't anyone see that there are valid arguments on both sides? Both parties have crazy scandals, extremists, and fucked up secrets, but that doesn't make the true central issues of the party incorrect. I like Republican market theory I like most Democratic human rights (sorry, but I had to put the "most" there) ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. It is a theory will substantial evidence. But, theories are created to fit data, so view the evidence as you will. I do believe in evolution, but it would be very ignorant to think that another theory (maybe one not so far off from macro-evolution) is in fact the true origin of species. Science is constantly rewritten! In fact, it strives to prove itself wrong, but for some odd reason, people seem to be very aggressive in pushing evolution on other people. Let them believe what they would like to believe. When the Protoss come down and tell us the truth, we'll all laugh at the crazy theories we've thought up over the years | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44257 Posts
On October 20 2010 11:45 Beef Noodles wrote: ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. Actually it is. Macro-evolution is the emergence of new species from older ones, also called speciation. And we've observed the formation of many new species. Anything here will do: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS330US330&q=observed instanced of speciation#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS330US330&q=observed instances of speciation&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5514d4c9ae44c415 The incredibly well-defended theory of evolution is the conclusion that ALL organisms that have ever lived can be traced back to a common ancestor. This is not the same as the observable fact of speciation, or the observable mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, genetic mutation, and genetic drift). Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution + time anyway; to say that micro-evolution occurs but macro-evolution doesn't is like saying that individual seconds can occur but entire minutes cannot. Anyways, back to O'Donnell. In reference to this (article + video): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state_n_767910.html?ref=fb&src=sp O'Donnell apparently has no understanding of the Constitution, which I found to be remarkably odd, considering she's running for political office. + Show Spoiler + Although it seems fewer and fewer candidates seem to know their stuff these days... | ||
|
Beef Noodles
United States937 Posts
And it may be my own personal bias, but after the various "missing link" scandals between various species that took so long to come to light, I tend to hold out on believing in the theory of evolution 100% | ||
|
Sadist
United States7220 Posts
On October 20 2010 11:45 Beef Noodles wrote: Man, politics in America is just so crazy these days... ON BOTH SIDES If you are a republican, liberals say you are racist and ignorant If you are a democrat, republicans say you are stupid, corrupt, and power hungry Can't anyone see that there are valid arguments on both sides? Both parties have crazy scandals, extremists, and fucked up secrets, but that doesn't make the true central issues of the party incorrect. I like Republican market theory I like most Democratic human rights (sorry, but I had to put the "most" there) ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. It is a theory will substantial evidence. But, theories are created to fit data, so view the evidence as you will. I do believe in evolution, but it would be very ignorant to think that another theory (maybe one not so far off from macro-evolution) is in fact the true origin of species. Science is constantly rewritten! In fact, it strives to prove itself wrong, but for some odd reason, people seem to be very aggressive in pushing evolution on other people. Let them believe what they would like to believe. When the Protoss come down and tell us the truth, we'll all laugh at the crazy theories we've thought up over the years Youve been conned by the christian coalition for even calling it "macro" evolution. Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism are all essentially facts. Its the explanation for WHY they happen that occasionally gets a bit sketchy. If bigger animals reproduced on the order of bacteria youd see evolution everywhere but since they dont well its like trying to watch fingernails grow. | ||
|
Beef Noodles
United States937 Posts
On October 20 2010 12:06 Sadist wrote: Youve been conned by the christian coalition for even calling it "macro" evolution. Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism are all essentially facts. Its the explanation for WHY they happen that occasionally gets a bit sketchy. If bigger animals reproduced on the order of bacteria youd see evolution everywhere but since they dont well its like trying to watch fingernails grow. It has nothing to do with Christians. What? It has to do with a fundamental view of science. Theories are created to fit data. That data does SUPPORT the theory, but you can't use that data to PROVE the theory (or that would be circular reasoning). I believe in gravity, but I wouldn't call someone crazy for coming up with a different theory that also fit the data (gravity is an extreme example). Due to the nature of arriving at theories, it is very hard to both prove/disprove an intelligent theory. That is my only point. So be nice to people with a differing opinion (and don't write them off as Christian fundamentalists or whatever). | ||
|
yups
Denmark116 Posts
On October 20 2010 12:06 Sadist wrote: Youve been conned by the christian coalition for even calling it "macro" evolution. Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism are all essentially facts. Its the explanation for WHY they happen that occasionally gets a bit sketchy. If bigger animals reproduced on the order of bacteria youd see evolution everywhere but since they dont well its like trying to watch fingernails grow. I think the issue at hand is that of the origin of the species, a theory that in no way can claim the same scientific credibility as that of the theory of gravity. For any situation you can imagine involving bodies of mass and defined momentums and forces I can predict the movement of these bodies. I cannot count the times this has been done and subsequent trajectories have been observed to be in accordance with the prediction. The origin of the species is an inherently historic hypothesis and hence it is NOT testable. Give me ANY example of ANY kind of being with limbs observed to evolve from a being without. Speciation have been observed in the narrow and arbitrary genetic definition of species. No substantial morphological change has ever been observed to evolve. | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On October 20 2010 12:36 yups wrote: I think the issue at hand is that of the origin of the species, a theory that in no way can claim the same scientific credibility as that of the theory of gravity. For any situation you can imagine involving bodies of mass and defined momentums and forces I can predict the movement of these bodies. I cannot count the times this has been done and subsequent trajectories have been observed to be in accordance with the prediction. The origin of the species is an inherently historic hypothesis and hence it is NOT testable. Give me ANY example of ANY kind of being with limbs observed to evolve from a being without. Speciation have been observed in the narrow and arbitrary genetic definition of species. No substantial morphological change has ever been observed to evolve. This is incorrect. The theory of plate tectonics is "inherently historic," yet most would generally consider it as valid a scientific theory as gravity. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On October 20 2010 12:36 yups wrote: The origin of the species is an inherently historic hypothesis and hence it is NOT testable. Give me ANY example of ANY kind of being with limbs observed to evolve from a being without. Speciation have been observed in the narrow and arbitrary genetic definition of species. No substantial morphological change has ever been observed to evolve. Speciation is evolution, and a continual progression will lead to dramatic differentiations between species. Your argument is flawed because you're expecting some sort of superficially dramatic and sudden change from one species to another which is not only absurd but also a misguided expectation that can only come from a severe misunderstanding of the theory. What you're asking for is really no different from the hilarious argument that creationists never get tired of: "Then why haven't we seen a monkey give birth to a human?!" | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On October 20 2010 12:14 Beef Noodles wrote: It has nothing to do with Christians. What? Oho, this should be good. Can you name many non-Christian politicians that have been against teaching evolution in schools? Or better yet, just give me a good non-religious reason to even be opposed to teaching evolution in schools. If you don't factor in creationism, it's the best theory we've got for the origin of species, I cannot see any logical reason you would be specifically opposed to it unless you already had a conflicting theory in mind. Countless theories are taught in schools all over the place, yet I don't see people protesting germ theory or atomic theory, or demanding that other parallel "theories" like numerology or astrology or divination are taught alongside actual science in science classes. No, it's only evolution (and the big bang theory), and the only reason for that would be because it conflicts with creationism, or "intelligent design", the current pseudo-intellectual phrase invented to sneak stuff past the radar. The real hilarious part is that creationism and evolution are not even opposing theories - evolution is only specifically opposed to the biblical creation stories, and if you're so religious you take every bible story literally, I think you've got bigger problems to worry about than what kids are being taught in public schools. Look, I don't care if you're religious or just anti-science (and this is not to this poster specifically), but you don't get to pick and choose which parts of science you're going to question when all of science is governed by the same principles. That's just intellectually dishonest. There are lots of theories more questionable than evolution, but the controversy here is only concerning theories that basically state "No, it turns out God didn't breathe the cosmos and all life on Earth into existence in 6 days". On October 20 2010 12:36 yups wrote: I think the issue at hand is that of the origin of the species, a theory that in no way can claim the same scientific credibility as that of the theory of gravity. For any situation you can imagine involving bodies of mass and defined momentums and forces I can predict the movement of these bodies. I cannot count the times this has been done and subsequent trajectories have been observed to be in accordance with the prediction. The origin of the species is an inherently historic hypothesis and hence it is NOT testable. Give me ANY example of ANY kind of being with limbs observed to evolve from a being without. Speciation have been observed in the narrow and arbitrary genetic definition of species. No substantial morphological change has ever been observed to evolve. Like, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say intellectually dishonest. Plate tectonics, stellar evolution, structure formation, giant impact hypothesis, hell even atomic theory can be considered a "historic" theory. Yet I don't see a big debate over any of these. We can't really test a giant cosmic body crashing into the Earth and observe what happens to all the resulting debris, so I guess that means we don't really have a "credible" idea of how the Moon was created. Maybe Ahura Mazda did it. I also like how you kind of underhandedly threw in substantial there, because as I'm sure you know there are plenty of examples of rapid evolution resulting in morphological change being observed in nature, but if we're only talking about "substantial", as in a chimpanzee at the zoo morphing into a fully adult human in a matter of seconds, I guess you got me there, evolution is a myth after all. The intellectual dishonesty is the part that really gets me. Seriously, people have a problem with the idea of humans and monkeys coming from a common ancestor, and yet have no problem with the idea that tiny invisible animals cause disease or the idea that tiny invisible balls of electricity are magically rearranged to form pictures in the magic box we call a TV. | ||
|
Beef Noodles
United States937 Posts
On October 20 2010 14:06 Krigwin wrote: Oho, this should be good. Can you name many non-Christian politicians that have been against teaching evolution in schools? Or better yet, just give me a good non-religious reason to even be opposed to teaching evolution in schools. If you don't factor in creationism, it's the best theory we've got for the origin of species, I cannot see any logical reason you would be specifically opposed to it unless you already had a conflicting theory in mind. Countless theories are taught in schools all over the place, yet I don't see people protesting germ theory or atomic theory, or demanding that other parallel "theories" like numerology or astrology or divination are taught alongside actual science in science classes. No, it's only evolution (and the big bang theory), and the only reason for that would be because it conflicts with creationism, or "intelligent design", the current pseudo-intellectual phrase invented to sneak stuff past the radar. The real hilarious part is that creationism and evolution are not even opposing theories - evolution is only specifically opposed to the biblical creation stories, and if you're so religious you take every bible story literally, I think you've got bigger problems to worry about than what kids are being taught in public schools. Look, I don't care if you're religious or just anti-science (and this is not to this poster specifically), but you don't get to pick and choose which parts of science you're going to question when all of science is governed by the same principles. That's just intellectually dishonest. There are lots of theories more questionable than evolution, but the controversy here is only concerning theories that basically state "No, it turns out God didn't breathe the cosmos and all life on Earth into existence in 6 days". Ok. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 1) I never once mentioned Christianity, creationism, or any other theory. 2) I only said that science (as a critical approach to understanding the universe) has to be a little more critical and open to new theories (and of course be highly critical of the new theories as well) 3) This poster get defensive against criticizing a theory! Don't you see the irony? If you stop criticizing and just start accepting theories before they have been ABSOLUTELY proven, it is no longer science and it indeed becomes a religion 4) My only point then and now: why not criticize and be open to new theories? That's how evolution came about anyway. | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On October 20 2010 14:06 Krigwin wrote: Oho, this should be good. Can you name many non-Christian politicians that have been against teaching evolution in schools? Or better yet, just give me a good non-religious reason to even be opposed to teaching evolution in schools. If you don't factor in creationism, it's the best theory we've got for the origin of species, I cannot see any logical reason you would be specifically opposed to it unless you already had a conflicting theory in mind. Can you name any non-Christian politicians, period? Don't make the incorrect assumption that this is purely fundamentalist Christianity since you've only seen the context of this debate in the US, where a huge majority of the nation is Christian. Fundamentalist Muslims, for example, may also be against evolution: http://www.hssrd.org/journal/summer2002/muslim-response.htm On October 20 2010 14:29 Beef Noodles wrote: Ok. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 1) I never once mentioned Christianity, creationism, or any other theory. 2) I only said that science (as a critical approach to understanding the universe) has to be a little more critical and open to new theories (and of course be highly critical of the new theories as well) 3) This poster get defensive against criticizing a theory! Don't you see the irony? If you stop criticizing and just start accepting theories before they have been ABSOLUTELY proven, it is no longer science and it indeed becomes a religion 4) My only point then and now: why not criticize and be open to new theories? That's how evolution came about anyway. Criticism is fine. The problem is that "NUH UH" is not valid criticism. Anything offered by creationists/ID-advocates falls miles short of being anywhere close to valid criticism. Furthermore, the "teach-both" advocacy that many people are upset with has nothing to do with valid criticism of a theory. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 20 2010 12:36 yups wrote: I think the issue at hand is that of the origin of the species, a theory that in no way can claim the same scientific credibility as that of the theory of gravity. Our theories of gravity actually do a terrible job at the quantum level. As far as I know, no force carrier or other means of quantizing gravity have been experimentally confirmed. In fact just a year ago, there was a physics paper published that proposed that gravity could be an entropic phenomenon, rather than a fundamental force. This theory only seems more complete because there is no political/religious pressure to teach "alternative" theories. If there was a biblical passage that could be interpreted in a way that contradicts gravity, I have little doubt that there would be groups dedicated to discrediting gravity and promoting intelligent falling. The origin of the species is an inherently historic hypothesis and hence it is NOT testable. Give me ANY example of ANY kind of being with limbs observed to evolve from a being without. Speciation have been observed in the narrow and arbitrary genetic definition of species. No substantial morphological change has ever been observed to evolve. Similarly, we can neither test nor observe the hypothesis that American revolutionaries fought a war with England in 1776 which led to the establishment of this country, or that ancient Greece had an advanced civilization that practiced a form of democracy. We can only examine mountains of historical evidence indicating that it happened that way. But you never know, one day a new discovery could radically change our current understanding. Should school districts be allowed to teach that America was founded in 1981 by Ronald Reagan, or that the first human civilization occurred in the year 800 when the Protoss got tired of watching us fling feces at the other monkeys and came down to teach us language and culture? There's about as much evidence for those alternative histories as there is for any of the alternatives to evolution. fwiw, I could better tolerate an argument for schools being able to choose to simply not teach evolution. Granted, they might as well decide not to teach about valence electrons in chemistry or teach just skip the Civil War in US History. It would be a sup-par education, but the parts the students did learn would still be useful and true. But having schools teach things, like intelligent design, which have absolutely NO supporting evidence, is mind-boggling. It's literally asking "is it okay for our schools to teach things to students that we're all but 100% sure aren't true?" | ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
| ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On October 20 2010 14:29 Beef Noodles wrote: Ok. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 1) I never once mentioned Christianity, creationism, or any other theory. 2) I only said that science (as a critical approach to understanding the universe) has to be a little more critical and open to new theories (and of course be highly critical of the new theories as well) 3) This poster get defensive against criticizing a theory! Don't you see the irony? If you stop criticizing and just start accepting theories before they have been ABSOLUTELY proven, it is no longer science and it indeed becomes a religion 4) My only point then and now: why not criticize and be open to new theories? That's how evolution came about anyway. You seem to misunderstand the difference between fact and theory and also what theory actually means in scientific terms. The word "evolution" is used to refer to both: an observable fact (that allele frequencies change over time in a population), which obviously has been observed numerous times in the field and in the lab and can be replicated under controlled conditions, and a scientific theory which is supposed to explain those facts mainly by a combination of gene variation and natural selection. The fact of evolution is not going to change in the sense that change in allele frequences is responsible for speciation and the biodiversity we see today. What will change are the details of the theory of evolution in light of new discoveries with regard to the mechanisms responsible the for propagation of allele frequency changes. Maybe it will even be overturned and replaced by a new theory even if this seems unlikely. But just like gravity will not cease to exist as soon as relativity theory will be replaced by a better theory (which seems just a matter of time), neither will the fact of evolution ever disappear again or be "disproven". It can't be. It's a fact. A scientific theory is as close to sure knowledge as one can ever get, it is the highest form of scientific insight. That is also why one can see a clear trend that theories which are held today are never really invalidated in light of new insight (even though this would sure be possible) but rather refined in more and more details. Teaching and accepting the best theories mankind has developed thus far as the representation of the highest degree of knowledge in every field, is not being uncritical, but being rational. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
Evolution is a fact in that it is observed to occur. The theory of evolution is different because it explains the process of speciation by natural selection and genetic drift. To be a scientific theory 2 criteria must be met: 1. A theory must explain observed phenomena (creationism can fit this as well as magic or any imaginative story can) 2. A theory must predict future phenomena (creationism or any crappy story can NEVER fit this) The Theory of Evolution explains the abundance of diverse species as a result of natural selection and genetic drift causing the genetic makeup of populations changing over time. Evidence for the Theory of Evolution includes similar species having similar genetics. Some species that are clearly separate may occasionally produce sterile offspring. This indicates that these species separated from each other a long time ago but haven't quite differentiated enough genetically to prevent mating. However, they have differentiated enough so that their offspring are non-viable and cannot merge the species. The Theory Evolution would predict that bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics because antibiotics are a selection pressure. Antibiotics kill the vast majority of bacteria. However, the occasional bacterial cell may survive due to a random genetic mutation, perhaps in an enzyme, so that an enzyme normally used for something else can now break down the antibiotic. This bacteria can survive in environments with the antibiotic and becomes the dominant strain. This was predicted by the Theory of Evolution and then was observed to occur, Just the existance of gavity is a fact, but we also have a Theory of Gravity that explains how it works and predicts how gravity will affect things, evolution is a fact and has an accompanying theory. Actually, the Theory of Evolution is actually more solid than the Theory of Gravity because we still haven't discovered the mythical "graviton" particle that exerts gravity, but we have identified DNA, the substance that imparts the characteristics of a species. Religious fundamentalists try to confuse people by calling Creationism/Intelligent Design a theory even though it isn't strong enough to qualify for the term, which represents the highest level of understanding possible in science. In fact, Creationism / Intelligent Design isn't even worth enough to be a scientific hypothesis, because to be a hypothesis it must be possible to test, and it's impossible to test if a god created humans from dirt. | ||
|
ghostunit
61 Posts
(because I don't live in the USA anyways, hehe) | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On October 20 2010 12:14 Beef Noodles wrote: It has nothing to do with Christians. What? It has to do with a fundamental view of science. Theories are created to fit data. That data does SUPPORT the theory, but you can't use that data to PROVE the theory (or that would be circular reasoning). I believe in gravity, but I wouldn't call someone crazy for coming up with a different theory that also fit the data (gravity is an extreme example). Due to the nature of arriving at theories, it is very hard to both prove/disprove an intelligent theory. That is my only point. So be nice to people with a differing opinion (and don't write them off as Christian fundamentalists or whatever). But Christine O'Donnell=Christian fundamentalist | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On October 20 2010 15:34 jacen wrote: Don't fuck this up US guys. Don't give the tea party too much credibility. They are playing with low-level fears and anxieties which is really bad stuff. You will become the laughing stock of at least Europe again if they get too much coverage or even manage to get into any significant offices. What is with all the left wingers on this website? America is already a laughing stock economically , i like the tea parties conservative economic policies. You can't keep spending at the rate Obama has been and not expect to wake up with a big hangover. | ||
|
TheGiftedApe
United States1243 Posts
| ||
| ||
