On January 10 2012 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 10 2012 21:59 DetriusXii wrote: Evolution also has the plausibility of being testable. If given enough resources, 100,000 years, and an area of land the size of Germany, I'm fairly certain that I would be able to apply selective pressures to force dogs to branch to a new species that would be unable to reproduce with the original dog. Other theories are intelligent design and that's just inserting mystery thing X that we could never hope to identify. I have the chance to experiment with evolution as a framework. That's what makes it scientific and other theories not.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Someone denying evolution does the same than someone denying that the earth is spheric. There is no evidence against evolution, we know perfectly the biological mechanisms that allow it, such as genetic mutations, and we don't have the slightest hypothesis of an alternative model except for the ridiculous superstition of some religious nuts who live in middle age.
If you're advocating "the scientific way", then don't call evolution a scientific fact and compare it to the earth being spherical.
Evolution is a theory, just like physics theories explaining gravity, electro magnetic waves etc. are theories. We observe different phenomena, like the force that works between objects with a mass which we call gravity, or in this instance: That animals and life forms are not the same in the present, compared to what we can gather of information on how they were like in the past. The only thing that is a fact is the observation - we then make a theory to try to explain our observations.
A theory is flawed, or 'wrong', if we can find evidence that does not fit into its model, but conversely we can never 'prove' that it is correct in every instance because we cannot observe every instance. I don't really see the big fuzz about politicians saying evolution is a theory - because it is, and currently we don't have any observation that it cannot explain.
I wish people would look a bit beyond this matter in these elections though, it's not like someone who doesn't accept evolution as the leading theory is automatically unfit to be president, because believe it or not, it seems the US has more pressing issues right now.
I strongly believe that someone who doesn't accept a model that is absolutely validated by a 100% of biologists and serious scientist, because the Bible says God created the earth 6000 years ago is not rational and not fitted to be the president of the most powerful country in the world.
There is not a single scientific counter argument to evolution. The only reason you can be opposed to it is superstition.
On January 10 2012 22:50 bOneSeven wrote: Oh, dear evolution debate , I don't approve going offtopic so I'll spoiler + Show Spoiler +
Making something scientifically proven does not mean it makes it correct . It simply makes it testable under certain environments , under certain premises. But science constantly changes , we have now the hots for quantum theories , probably in the future it will evolve , and we'll say ... Newtonian physics is wrong ... quantum physics is wrong .. blabla now this is the model we use . Plus in 2012 , we cannot separate different sciences so they fit our causes ... no you can't separate math from physics , biology form physics , and so on .. This is what it does ... and anyways ... the current scientific paradigm basically requires you to grant them the 1 pass , and that is , believe in magic once ... and then we can start from there . What sells me the idea of intelligent loving design is .... I refuse to believe that out of a cold ruthless dead machine we came about ... and anyways the chance of us being here , by science , is lower than winning the lottery 10 times in a row .... So , yeah ... Also the most intelligent people I've met are not atheists , they are extremly humble , and they know that whatever paradigm they official support right now , they can never be sure of the "truth" , whatever that might mean . What I'm saying , I believe no model is correct , and whoever starts to mock anything is simply stupid , not smarter than the creationist fundamentalist .... If a model is preposterous , an intelligent person would simply ignore it and move on ... Oh well ... That's about it ... And saying you can run a state without religion .... I can't imagine such a thing ... the state itself is kind of a father figure that resembles some things in religion , not to mention to justice system has it's roots in religion.
And about Dr Paul completely denying evolution and being a strong christian . You know , special experiences are real , maybe he had some crazy "god" experience ... That's not something uncommon or crazy , take 5 grams of shroom and meet God , or whatever you wanna call it.. And also , there's been evidence that there are people with specific biology who makes them able to have psychadelic experiences without taking drugs so ... Who knows what happened to the guy :D , at least he's extremly peaceful and reasonable about it , not like Rick wanting to ban CONTRACEPTIVES LOL
Well, yeah, he had some crazy God experience. That's fine. Hopefully we have someone who doesn't have some crazy God experience that lead him to support crazy irrational religious belief because, I'll tell you, I fucking hope that the one who leads the number one superpower in the world can somehow think rationally, can prefer what is scientifically proven to what a 6000 years old book full of parabolas says, because someone who has any "crazy experiences" at all should have the power to anihiliate the earth in 15 fucking minutes.
On January 10 2012 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 10 2012 21:59 DetriusXii wrote: Evolution also has the plausibility of being testable. If given enough resources, 100,000 years, and an area of land the size of Germany, I'm fairly certain that I would be able to apply selective pressures to force dogs to branch to a new species that would be unable to reproduce with the original dog. Other theories are intelligent design and that's just inserting mystery thing X that we could never hope to identify. I have the chance to experiment with evolution as a framework. That's what makes it scientific and other theories not.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Someone denying evolution does the same than someone denying that the earth is spheric. There is no evidence against evolution, we know perfectly the biological mechanisms that allow it, such as genetic mutations, and we don't have the slightest hypothesis of an alternative model except for the ridiculous superstition of some religious nuts who live in middle age.
If you're advocating "the scientific way", then don't call evolution a scientific fact and compare it to the earth being spherical.
Evolution is a theory, just like physics theories explaining gravity, electro magnetic waves etc. are theories. We observe different phenomena, like the force that works between objects with a mass which we call gravity, or in this instance: That animals and life forms are not the same in the present, compared to what we can gather of information on how they were like in the past. The only thing that is a fact is the observation - we then make a theory to try to explain our observations.
A theory is flawed, or 'wrong', if we can find evidence that does not fit into its model, but conversely we can never 'prove' that it is correct in every instance because we cannot observe every instance. I don't really see the big fuzz about politicians saying evolution is a theory - because it is, and currently we don't have any observation that it cannot explain.
I wish people would look a bit beyond this matter in these elections though, it's not like someone who doesn't accept evolution as the leading theory is automatically unfit to be president, because believe it or not, it seems the US has more pressing issues right now.
Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
As for saying that evolution is a theory. No problem in that, if the person actually understands what that means and most creationists stating that do not. However saying it is unproven/only/just a theory is a misleading statement as there is no such thing as proof in science and adding the "only/just" implies there is something more reliable than theory, which is false.
On January 10 2012 23:28 bOneSeven wrote: I'd rather have a president who had crazy god ( drug ) experiences , than having a president who had crazy ego trips experiences ;O .
You know any major politician / businessman, including "Dr Paul" who doesn't have ego trip experiences? That people have that or that ego is fine. When they start to say things completely irrational, then you are in huge troubles.
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Does accepting evolution and global warming really make you "left wing" these days?
Wowwy.
It's indeed terrible when evolution and other scientific explanations are even put into political debates as if these presidential candidates were experts in fields of biology, chemistry, and physics. There shouldn't be debate questions of whether or not they accept scientific facts and theories (although the answers should be "Why wouldn't I?").
Where does "accepting gravity" fall in the political spectrum? I suppose it's far left in comparison to those who believe in Intelligent Falling.
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Does accepting evolution and global warming really make you "left wing" these days?
Wowwy.
It's indeed terrible when evolution and other scientific explanations are even put into political debates as if these presidential candidates were experts in fields of biology, chemistry, and physics. There shouldn't be debate questions of whether or not they accept scientific facts and theories (although the answers should be "Why wouldn't I?").
Where does "accepting gravity" fall in the political spectrum? I suppose it's far left in comparison to those who believe in Intelligent Falling.
Well, when you are about to decide who will take decision about changing the policy for protecting the climate against global warming or change laws about abortion / contraception etc etc etc, you better have someone who doesn't believe in religious shits that don't make any sense.
You rule a country with your ideas; politics is about ideas, and obviously if you believe earth was created 6000 years ago by God in 7 days and Dinosaurs fossil are some divine fake, it will be different than if you trust more science than superstitions.
Now it's not about being an expert. You don't need to be an expert to have a very firm opinion on evolution.
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Does accepting evolution and global warming really make you "left wing" these days?
Wowwy.
It's indeed terrible when evolution and other scientific explanations are even put into political debates as if these presidential candidates were experts in fields of biology, chemistry, and physics. There shouldn't be debate questions of whether or not they accept scientific facts and theories (although the answers should be "Why wouldn't I?").
Where does "accepting gravity" fall in the political spectrum? I suppose it's far left in comparison to those who believe in Intelligent Falling.
Well, when you are about to decide who will take decision about changing the policy for protecting global warming or change laws about abortion / contraception etc etc etc, you better have someone who doesn't believe in religious shits that don't make any sense.
You rule a country with your ideas; politics is about ideas, and obviously if you believe earth was created 6000 years ago by God in 7 days and Dinosaurs fossil are some divine fake, it will be different than if you trust more science than superstitions.
Now it's not about being an expert. You don't need to be an expert to have a very firm opinion on evolution.
Those are very good points, and I agree with them. I meant that I wish there didn't *have* to be questions on whether or not the plausible rulers of the free world accepted scientific facts. I think different opinions and perspectives on policies and ethics can still evolve from the same given scientific explanations. And religion will shape a lot too, although I wish that candidates would understand that religious beliefs should come second to actual scientific facts.
Such foul language and anger in this thread. Can we just have updates and such about the Repulican nominations? So what does everyone think about the possibilty of Santorum winning Iowa??
On January 11 2012 00:28 Instigata wrote: Such foul language and anger in this thread. Can we just have updates and such about the Repulican nominations? So what does everyone think about the possibilty of Santorum winning Iowa??
Iowa is fairly irrelevant at this point. The republican base seems to be rapidly coalescing around Romney. I get the sense that this will be ending soon.
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Does accepting evolution and global warming really make you "left wing" these days?
Wowwy.
Haven't you heard, reality has a well known left wing bias.
In all seriousness though, the anti-science fervor in the republican party is continually astonishing to me. I honestly don't see how Obama could lose as long as no huge scandals or self-sabotage happens. If a moderate republican wins the nomination a good chunk of the republican vote will probably go to an independent candidate (Ron Paul perhaps), and if someone like Santorum (or Rick Perry, but he doesn't seem to have a chance anymore) wins Obama will probably get a large amount of the independent voters. Until then we all get to witness the horrifying hilarity that this process is.
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Does accepting evolution and global warming really make you "left wing" these days?
Wowwy.
Haven't you heard, reality has a well known left wing bias.
In all seriousness though, the anti-science fervor in the republican party is continually astonishing to me. I honestly don't see how Obama could lose as long as no huge scandals or self-sabotage happens. If a moderate republican wins the nomination a good chunk of the republican vote will probably go to an independent candidate (Ron Paul perhaps), and if someone like Santorum (or Rick Perry, but he doesn't seem to have a chance anymore) wins Obama will probably get a large amount of the independent voters. Until then we all get to witness the horrifying hilarity that this process is.
Hasn't this always been the problem of Republican Party? The spectrum of opinion is so vast and a very large percentage of its voters are such extremists that it makes it very hard to find a consensus. In all logic, America should have a far right christian fundamentalist party, and a moderate right wing party. I am not sure that Huntsman and Santorum have, deep down anything at all in common.
As for these elections, I guess the right wing turn that the Republicans have taken with the Tea Party thing is probably going to cost them the elections as it's very unlikely that the moderate republicans and adepts of Buchanan, Palin or even Paul find a candidate they can agree on.
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Does accepting evolution and global warming really make you "left wing" these days?
Wowwy.
Haven't you heard, reality has a well known left wing bias.
In all seriousness though, the anti-science fervor in the republican party is continually astonishing to me. I honestly don't see how Obama could lose as long as no huge scandals or self-sabotage happens. If a moderate republican wins the nomination a good chunk of the republican vote will probably go to an independent candidate (Ron Paul perhaps), and if someone like Santorum (or Rick Perry, but he doesn't seem to have a chance anymore) wins Obama will probably get a large amount of the independent voters. Until then we all get to witness the horrifying hilarity that this process is.
Hasn't this always been the problem of Republican Party? The spectrum of opinion is so vast and a very large percentage of its voters are such extremists that it makes it very hard to find a consensus. In all logic, America should have a far right christian fundamentalist party, and a moderate right wing party. I am not sure that Huntsman and Santorum have, deep down anything at all in common.
As for these elections, I guess the right wing turn that the Republicans have taken with the Tea Party thing is probably going to cost them the elections as it's very unlikely that the moderate republicans and adepts of Buchanan, Palin or even Paul find a candidate they can agree on.
Edit: Left wing biased reality
Wait wait wait. Hold up.
Are you saying that we DON'T have a far right christian fundamentalist party and a moderate right wing party?
On January 11 2012 01:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 11 2012 00:28 Instigata wrote: Such foul language and anger in this thread.
Says the person who has "STFU" as a signature.
On January 11 2012 00:56 Attican wrote:
On January 11 2012 00:03 Haemonculus wrote:
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Does accepting evolution and global warming really make you "left wing" these days?
Wowwy.
Haven't you heard, reality has a well known left wing bias.
In all seriousness though, the anti-science fervor in the republican party is continually astonishing to me. I honestly don't see how Obama could lose as long as no huge scandals or self-sabotage happens. If a moderate republican wins the nomination a good chunk of the republican vote will probably go to an independent candidate (Ron Paul perhaps), and if someone like Santorum (or Rick Perry, but he doesn't seem to have a chance anymore) wins Obama will probably get a large amount of the independent voters. Until then we all get to witness the horrifying hilarity that this process is.
Hasn't this always been the problem of Republican Party? The spectrum of opinion is so vast and a very large percentage of its voters are such extremists that it makes it very hard to find a consensus. In all logic, America should have a far right christian fundamentalist party, and a moderate right wing party. I am not sure that Huntsman and Santorum have, deep down anything at all in common.
As for these elections, I guess the right wing turn that the Republicans have taken with the Tea Party thing is probably going to cost them the elections as it's very unlikely that the moderate republicans and adepts of Buchanan, Palin or even Paul find a candidate they can agree on.
Edit: Left wing biased reality
Wait wait wait. Hold up.
Are you saying that we DON'T have a far right christian fundamentalist party and a moderate right wing party?
Hahaha you got me
It's true that in a country like France, Obama would be a solid right winger.
On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote: Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:
In everyday life:
Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact!
In Science:
Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote: Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:
In everyday life:
Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact!
In Science:
Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
EPT
