The Cancer eating at America

[morbidjbyrd]

Cancer of America?
Those who demonize someone of a different viewpoint in the name of science, when in reality, it's just as much a religion as any other. If you'd like to differentiate between evolution as a genisis and evolution as small mutations mutations every now and then, you might get somewhere in a discussion with the latter. The former, you won't; you must understand is purely hypothetical, just as much as religions are. Insisting evolution as a genisis to the point of demeaning other beliefs on origins means you're just as much of a zealot as you make others out to be. If evolution were the answer to all life and understanding, your head would have exploded already.

Cancer of America v2?
Those who pretend to know and understand how things work but are just reciting. You don't understand yet, you're only repeating. To understand would mean you would come to the same conclusion on your own, without your reading material. The amount of people that truly understand the material enough to debate about it (read: not rhetoric) are far fewer than you think.

OP, you've just shown the world how closed minded you are.

I, for one, thouroughly enjoy actual debates with competent people on the matter, especially when both learn some of their views are compatable with each other, such as big bang with intelligent design.

Yah those darn pesky people who read available information out there and educate themselves.....damn elitist!!!!
IF YOU DONT START AT THE BEGINNING, AND REWORK EVERY EXPERIMENT FROM SCRATCH, THEN YOU CANNOT BE A SCIENTIST!!!

Ohh well, you caught me, I just reiterate common knowledge like an elitist jerk....
I wanted to start from scratch, but I was never good at flint knapping and friction fires.

[ungar]

It seems like your saying "We don't know everything, so we don't know anything." Which I find a ridiculous position.

Evolution assumes life can occur, because life occurred. Given life, it explains how the current biological state could come to be. Certainly we should figure out how that life started, but just because we dont know the exact process doesn't mean we need to just to some non-logical answer.

It's. Okay. To. Not. Know.

science claims to "know" things. people accept science as true and fact. though there have always been scientists ousting each other. for every scientist proposing he has an answer there are 10 more questioning his answer and poking holes in it. science claims to have truths, yet many people question these truths, and the truth isn't evident. truth should be obvious, shouldn't it? why wouldn't everyone say "oh yeah, that makes sense...that's true?" science would state "the sky is blue as fact" then night comes and another scientist says "look the sky isn't always blue" then science says "ok, during the day the sky is blue" the clouds overcast the sky and its white. then science can say "the sky is blue during day with no clouds" then you have pollution, a sunset, an eclipse, etc. the only "truth" would be in a clean room with no variables or change. because there is always variation in the world, you can never state something as absolute without a million stipulations on it.

fundamentally, its human nature to be lazy, so people will find shortcuts to laws and what not. if a law fits into a sentence without a million stipulations its not a solid law. there will always be exceptions.

the only true thing about science is that its our way of relating out perception of the truth and consistency we see in the world. and it will never have absolute truth unless the topic is perfectly specific enough that we can use it in a context. science though won't ever be perfect. it can only be applied to a specific task. the reason scientists question things is because it was flawed or a new context/variable was introduced and the science didn't hold up.

science doesn't have proof as it claims, it has disproofs. it doesn't have answers, it has questions.

[Lirina]

Provide an existing example of a transitional species?

Humans

really where is my half human/half monkey...There was atransistion from chimp ----> Homosapiansapian

[Deleted]

The one reason I am a creationist, of sorts, comes from what Steven Hawking once said in his book 'The Grand Design' which is, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather then nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist".

Such a statement poses a question: Where does nothing come from?

thats probably the strongest argument for god that there is. Some scientists believe that the laws of the universe are so finely tuned and precise that they couldnt possibly have been formed by mistake, and its the only reason for belief that i respect, all the nonsense of miracles and organized religion turns my stomach

[CryptFiend]

science claims to "know" things. people accept science as true and fact. though there have always been scientists ousting each other. for every scientist proposing he has an answer there are 10 more questioning his answer and poking holes in it. science claims to have truths, yet many people question these truths, and the truth isn't evident. truth should be obvious, shouldn't it? why wouldn't everyone say "oh yeah, that makes sense...that's true?" science would state "the sky is blue as fact" then night comes and another scientist says "look the sky isn't always blue" then science says "ok, during the day the sky is blue" the clouds overcast the sky and its white. then science can say "the sky is blue during day with no clouds" then you have pollution, a sunset, an eclipse, etc. the only "truth" would be in a clean room with no variables or change. because there is always variation in the world, you can never state something as absolute without a million stipulations on it.

fundamentally, its human nature to be lazy, so people will find shortcuts to laws and what not. if a law fits into a sentence without a million stipulations its not a solid law. there will always be exceptions.

the only true thing about science is that its our way of relating out perception of the truth and consistency we see in the world. and it will never have absolute truth unless the topic is perfectly specific enough that we can use it in a context. science though won't ever be perfect. it can only be applied to a specific task. the reason scientists question things is because it was flawed or a new context/variable was introduced and the science didn't hold up.

science doesn't have proof as it claims, it has disproofs. it doesn't have answers, it has questions.

Mind testing the theory of gravity out for me? Try jumping on your roof then tell me how it went.

[Rukh]

This seems as good a place as any for this:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm

Climate change deniers and theory of evolution deniers often like to point to the fact that there's disagreements in specific conclusions about climate change as proof that it's wrong, when in fact that doesn't do that at all. A thing can be not absolutely true but still much more true than a given alternative. The fact for instance, that climate scientists may not be able to agree on the exact temperature of the earth in 10 years. This does not negate the fact that "Humans have caused the world to get warmer over the years" is still MORE TRUE than "the climate is not getting warmer nor is human caused".

[smartAXE]

If you don't know the difference between a law or a theory, you really shouldn't be lecturing other people on it. Laws can be false and have been proven false in the past, they are not "stronger" than a theory. The reason they are called laws is because they are a precise mathematical statement (e.g. a formula, or equation) while a theory is a comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

5 words is a lecture? didnt say it was anyway shape or form better than a theory. you just proved me right as well. gravity isnt a theory anymore, its a law, a precise mathematical formula as you yourself said. no idea why you posted trying to stab at me, but i think you missed.

[morbidjbyrd]

thats probably the strongest argument for god that there is. Some scientists believe that the laws of the universe are so finely tuned and precise that they couldnt possibly have been formed by mistake, and its the only reason for belief that i respect, all the nonsense of miracles and organized religion turns my stomach

Yah, this is true...of course, it still has no relation to any man made religious figure.

However, there is a much simpler, more scientific explanation as well...multiple universes.

[Master of the Random]

I am just asking in the human model to provide 5 positive mutations that help support the theory that when the DNA code changes it has a positive outlook on the species. There are far more negative possibilities with a different code that there are with a correct code. On top of that take the 4 wing fruit flies as an example of "evolution" - human ingenuity. It has a much shorter life span and 2 wing fruit flies refuse to mate with it. Thus the species dying off just after the first "mutation" has occurred.

The issue is not the positive change mutations have, but rather that in order for evolution to work, information has to be added. There are plenty of positive mutations (think adaptations), but NONE of them add information. Rather, existing information is altered/removed from the gene coding, thus shrinking the gene pool, rather than enlarging it, which is what evolution requires.

[TexasRules]

This thread was not supposed to be about evolution, rather it was supposed to be about the Repubs rejection of science, and their propaganda to that end.

Please enlighten me on where it says that in your opening. You put up an inflammatory title and post an opinion piece from a decidedly liberal "news" agency. You are obviously showing your affiliation here. You put up the fire pit (title), throw on the matches (opinion piece) and then wait for people to come and comment about the fire. Even when you replied and tried to get political, most people just kept debating science. Then you gave up the political slant.

Hey let's throw up something to make people talk bad about the party i do not like....except most aren't even talking about the political aspect. Like most posters, you trolled and most people ignored your political troll slant. You said it was about the Republicans and their propaganda....it is more like it is about your propaganda.

[rkma]

The one reason I am a creationist, of sorts, comes from what Steven Hawking once said in his book 'The Grand Design' which is, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather then nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist".

Such a statement poses a question: Where does nothing come from?

Step 1: Nothing comes from ____ (take your pick), and then the next question is, where does ____ come from?

Step 2: Repeat step 1, ad infinitum.

[Master of the Random]

However, there is a much simpler, more scientific explanation as well...multiple universes.

So where did those other universes come from?

[Maharishi]

really where is my half human/half monkey...There was atransistion from chimp ----> Homosapiansapian

Homo Erectus?

This is my last post in this thread, because it's obviously full of people who don't have a grasp of what evolution means, nor do they have any intent of learning. Instead people will use any gap in the fossil record to fuel their own confirmation biases, while disregarding the rest.

[Tuvok]

The cancer of the entire world is easily defined. It's a certain type of people. The type of person that will force their beliefs upon others. The type of person that puts belief before fact. The type of person that is incapable of questioning themselves and considering themselves anything but ultimately correct by default. The people without conscience. The people too stupid to realise their own stupidity. The type of person that doesn't appreciate that human lives are all equally important regardless of rank and social standing.

That covers them all. From the idiotic psychos like Bachmann and Palin that would ruin America given the chance (though they would tragically think they would be doing it good), to the African warlords screwing over their people, to the religious extremists that kill for their beliefs.

A sheer lack of humility, perspective, intelligence, foresight, selflessness, and compassion are all the prime causes of this world's problems. In other words, the inadequacy of the average human being. It will be a long damn time until we can eliminate all of our shortcomings and become a species that can actually realistically be proud of itself.

[Sunshine]

So,

1) It's pretty silly to make a thread calling anything the "cancer" of anything.

2) It's also pretty silly to make a generalization that because one [insert group of people] said something, all [insert group of people] believe that.

3) Content of the thread is pretty bad at this point, bickering back and forth and attacking each other instead of providing thoughtful discussion.

Closed.