What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ron Paul 2008 Revolution

  • Thread starter zappafan
  • Start date
  • #181
so why do i like Thompson over Obama when in this thread i said im all for same sex marriage? cause as president i think Thompson will/can do jack chit about same sex marriage.....however who Obama appoints to the Supreme court can and will have a negative impact on me.............
 
  • #182
How so? What position of Obama would translate to the Supreme Court that would negatively impact you?

Capslock

EDIT: Nevermind I see now from the last page. I'd submit that Obama would do as much about gun control as Thompson would do on gay marriage. :)

Outsiders: Evolution is a fact, the specific mechanics are a scientific theory, as opposed to creationism or ID. It is not taken on faith at all, but backed by mountains of evidence, and observed in the lab. I know you may not accept that due to your religious beliefs, but the scientific community has LONG since moved on from this so-called controversy. I'd like to know if my Presidential candidate is going to put religious pandering above good science, and it's frankly a good barometer issue.
 
  • #183
i agree Obama himself wouldnt do much about gun control.....but who he appoints to the supreme court could.....the justices he disapproved of have a solid record of voting for the constitution and not for personal beliefs. we have one case now going before the supreme court on gun control(the Washington DC case) and for the first time in i dont know how long we(gun owners) are pretty dang sure it will go our way. because of Alito and Roberts will side with the constitution. and when that gets through i expect several other cases to make their way infront of the Supreme Court.............so who ever Obama appoints to the supreme court if he gets a chance can really screw things up for gun owners. and im not talking making machine guns legal....im talking the basic right to own a gun to defend yourself
 
  • #184
Who cares what their religious beliefs are as long as they don't make policy based on it?

The problem is the last part - too many politicians DO make policy based on their faith, especially the Republicans due to the influence of the American Taliban. Therefore, I'd like to know which particular invisible man they plan on cramming down my throat if elected.

There's a difference in being educated in the sciences and accepting something in the science field by faith. Yes, science requires faith as well, which many people fail to comprehend. Evolution is a theory, it can't be proven and must be accepted by faith. However the every day Joe, especially ones that disregard God, somehow come to the false belief that evolution is true and proven. Ask any scientist to prove evolution and they'll tell you it can't be proven, it's only a theory and that it is the best explanation they can come up with from observation.

Wrong. Evolution is actually *both* fact and theory.

The fact of evolution is that organisms change over time and that species arise from new species. Both of these have been *directly* observed, and cannot be disputed.

The theory of evolution is our understanding of the mechanism of these changes, and we have enough understanding to be able to actually predict changes, their rate, and how fast they spread through a population.

You want to know the interesting thing? We have a more thorough understanding of how evolution occurs than of how gravity works.

Also, there is no 'faith' in science beyond that empirically derived results reflect reality. God is not involved - evolution and science specify nothing about the existence of God or lack thereof.

Finally, there are a total of zero working biologists who think ID/creationism are anything but laughable. And before you even think of disputing this, I've heard ID mentioned repeatedly at scientific meetings, and every time it was followed by laughter. Real scientists laugh at creationism.

Mokele
 
  • #185
Just to add to Mokele's point...

I majored in Biology, so I took a LOT of bio classes. Through my entire college career, I had a total of 2 bio profs, and 0 physics profs who believed in god. Think about that. The people that study the earth constantly, study life, etc. Grand total of 2 (and I went to college in Germany, then the 2nd most conservative city in the US. We have more churches than bars here). Of the 2 that believed in god, one put it this way:

"I believe in god, I mean I'm definitely a christian, but if you think creationism was how the world came to be, or if you think evolution didn't happen, even though there is so much insurmountable evidence and indisputable proof for it, you're either completely ignorant, or your IQ is below room temperature, and you should probably go off yourself"

For anyone that seriously thinks creationism happened, or that the earth is young, or any of that other fairy tale hocus pocus, I strongly suggest Scientists Confront Creationism. It doesn't take very long to read it in it's entirety. The book is great because it presents creationist arguments, then systematically tears them asunder via logic, rational thought, and indisputable fact.
 
  • #186
It's hard to say what you really feel at times like this. On one day, I agree with the two posters above me, on the other, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Although they'd freely hurt mine given the chance lmao.

I believe in the Big Bang. I believe in evolution. I believe I descended from an ape, who descended from a retarded fish-frog (in the words of Ms. Garrison) and I believe the creation of Earth and everything in it took a LONG time. I don't see why God couldn't have created everything the long, slow way that modern science suggests. There's so much evidence for it and the creationists come of to everyone with common sense as sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LALALALALALALA"

Maybe saying "six days" is taking the easy way out for them. Maybe it gives them security. They are too prideful to say "I don't know" or maybe their faith is blind. That's fine. But wanting disclaimers in science books or even having ID taught ALONGSIDE evolution is absurd. And for that matter, the concept of ID is a thinly veiled form of creationism. You could say it's the PC version of creationism. It's like a wolf in dog's clothing.
 
  • #187
i agree Obama himself wouldnt do much about gun control.....but who he appoints to the supreme court could.....the justices he disapproved of have a solid record of voting for the constitution and not for personal beliefs. we have one case now going before the supreme court on gun control(the Washington DC case) and for the first time in i dont know how long we(gun owners) are pretty dang sure it will go our way. because of Alito and Roberts will side with the constitution. and when that gets through i expect several other cases to make their way infront of the Supreme Court.............so who ever Obama appoints to the supreme court if he gets a chance can really screw things up for gun owners. and im not talking making machine guns legal....im talking the basic right to own a gun to defend yourself


Wow, we agree on a lot of things, Rattler. Not necessarily how to get there, but I feel like we have the same sensibilities, but the Supreme Court justices are among the main reasons I would not vote for any Republican. I find they don't follow the Constitution at all, in my opinion, and instead usually side with authoritarian interference. Especially on issues like search and seizure, assisted suicide, free speech, medical marijuana, abortion, and most other non-gun related personal freedoms. We had a relatively liberal Supreme Court for a lot of years there, and you still can own all your guns more easily than some carnivorous plants, so I don't think there's much to worry about there. A surprising number of liberals would be very upset if they came for our guns. :)

Capslock
 
  • #188
  • #189
Outsiders: Evolution is a fact, the specific mechanics are a scientific theory, as opposed to creationism or ID. It is not taken on faith at all, but backed by mountains of evidence, and observed in the lab. I know you may not accept that due to your religious beliefs, but the scientific community has LONG since moved on from this so-called controversy. I'd like to know if my Presidential candidate is going to put religious pandering above good science, and it's frankly a good barometer issue.

Evolution is not a fact, it's a scientific theory. Seriously go and ask a scientist if they can prove evolution or any theory for that matter. They will just laugh at you because it's not possible to prove it true.
 
  • #190
Wrong. Evolution is actually *both* fact and theory.

The fact of evolution is that organisms change over time and that species arise from new species. Both of these have been *directly* observed, and cannot be disputed.

The theory of evolution is our understanding of the mechanism of these changes, and we have enough understanding to be able to actually predict changes, their rate, and how fast they spread through a population.

You want to know the interesting thing? We have a more thorough understanding of how evolution occurs than of how gravity works.

Also, there is no 'faith' in science beyond that empirically derived results reflect reality. God is not involved - evolution and science specify nothing about the existence of God or lack thereof.

Finally, there are a total of zero working biologists who think ID/creationism are anything but laughable. And before you even think of disputing this, I've heard ID mentioned repeatedly at scientific meetings, and every time it was followed by laughter. Real scientists laugh at creationism.

Mokele

This is the problem with the non-scientific community, they don't even understand what a scientific theory is. Anything in science that is a theory, requires faith to believe in because it cannot be proven true. Tomorrow a small scientific finding can be found that destroys the core of a theory.
 
  • #191
Evolution is not a fact, it's a scientific theory. Seriously go and ask a scientist if they can prove evolution or any theory for that matter. They will just laugh at you because it's not possible to prove it true.
fail-24.jpg


Did you miss Mokele's post? The fact that evolution happens is indisputeable fact. No real scientists would laugh at it, or say that it doesn't exist. What alternate universe do you live in?
I can prove evolution in the lab in less than 24 hours.

Theories don't require faith. Theories are theories because scientists like to cover their bases, and if something can't be proven in all cases, but still can in 99% of them, its a theory.
I cordially invite you to go back to 8th grade biology immediately.
 
  • #192
I believe he's talking about macroevolution. Most creationists actually believe in microevolution, but not macro.

That's a very important differentiation you should make in a conversation like this.
 
  • #193
Just to add to Mokele's point...

I majored in Biology, so I took a LOT of bio classes. Through my entire college career, I had a total of 2 bio profs, and 0 physics profs who believed in god. Think about that. The people that study the earth constantly, study life, etc. Grand total of 2 (and I went to college in Germany, then the 2nd most conservative city in the US. We have more churches than bars here). Of the 2 that believed in god, one put it this way:

"I believe in god, I mean I'm definitely a christian, but if you think creationism was how the world came to be, or if you think evolution didn't happen, even though there is so much insurmountable evidence and indisputable proof for it, you're either completely ignorant, or your IQ is below room temperature, and you should probably go off yourself"

For anyone that seriously thinks creationism happened, or that the earth is young, or any of that other fairy tale hocus pocus, I strongly suggest Scientists Confront Creationism. It doesn't take very long to read it in it's entirety. The book is great because it presents creationist arguments, then systematically tears them asunder via logic, rational thought, and indisputable fact.

You can't disprove one faith with another faith. It's a shame as a Bio major that you didn't learn what a scientific theory is and isn't. There are many Biologists who are Christian who don't believe in all the aspects of evolution. In fact there's a pretty high prestigious U.S. Lab that has fired a Biologist because one day him and his boss were talking in the office and he told his boss he doesn't believe in evolution, but in God. Little after that he was harassed and then fired, because of his beliefs. He was an expert in what he was hired to do. His faith did not hinder his work performance. He is now currently suing his workplace for this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0732514220071207
 
  • #194
fail-24.jpg


Did you miss Mokele's post? The fact that evolution happens is indisputeable fact. No real scientists would laugh at it, or say that it doesn't exist. What alternate universe do you live in?
I can prove evolution in the lab in less than 24 hours.

Theories don't require faith. Theories are theories because scientists like to cover their bases, and if something can't be proven in all cases, but still can in 99% of them, its a theory.
I cordially invite you to go back to 8th grade biology immediately.

Actually I just finished another semester of Biology this last semester and received a B-, at a college level. Theories cannot be proven, and TRUE scientists will not tell you that they can be proven. They will tell you that a theory is the best scientific explanation for a phenomena, based upon what can be observed and tested. It is not TRUTH, it is not FACT, it's a THEORY. Theories can and some have been disproved. Either way it takes faith to believe in them, just as it takes faith for me to believe in God.
 
  • #195
No theory or hypothesis can be proven true, they can only be proven false. This is the nature of science. The way we get "facts" is through continual failure to falsify a hypothesis. This said if your going to argue that this disproves evolution you need to destory all technology as magic and heresy as technology is integrally intertwined with science. That means you need to stop using your computer as the physics that allow electricity are false as it cant be proven true and is likely the result of a group of wizards down at the power plant who use the power lines and electric meters for show.

Also the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is nothing. You are just taking a "snapshot" of the process when you examine micro evolution. they use the same mechanism and follow the same rules. Truly I want someone to show me how different micro and macro evolution are. I think it is something a lot of people use to satiate the creationists.
 
  • #196
That means you need to stop using your computer as the physics that allow electricity are false as it cant be proven true and is likely the result of a group of wizards down at the power plant who use the power lines and electric meters for show.

I was wondering what that group of hooded people were doing when I drove by the power plant...

xvart.
 
  • #197
This is a little off tangent but found it interesting nonetheless. I was at my local zoo today and learned something new about Koalas. Apparently the Eucalyptus leaves (the only food source of a Koala) contain cyanide and sedatives. The person there was trying to explain to me that the Koalas evolved to be able to eat the Eucalyptus without dying. Lets think about this for a second. If the original Koala could not eat Eucalyptus without dying, then how did it "evolve" over a period of time to withstand the lethal amounts of cyanide?
 
  • #198
How can you work in a scientific institution...with science...if you can't accept a VERY basic truth? If the guy rejects evolution, he is mentally ill, and unfit to perform his duties. Its like being hired as a physicist for NASA, but saying you have religious objections to believing in trig.

I think you're really missing out on the whole theory process...when a theory becomes a law, etc. Based on your knowledge of biology, I have serious doubts about the efficacy and credibility of your institution. Your location says Ohio...where do you go? Mt. Vernon Nazerene? Ohio Christian? Tri-State Bible College? Theories are certainly testable, thats how they become laws, and thats why they exist. Because they started out as a hypothesis that was systematically proven enough times/in enough situations to become a theory. Here's a definition of a theory:

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world"
Did you see that? Well substantiated! How can you substantiate something if you can't prove it or test it? Most theories tend to be generally accepted, and do not take faith. They take looking at evidence and making a decision. Not sitting around having blind totally unproveable faith in some delusional mythological fairy tale about a deplorable psychotic maniac. I think you're missing some things as well. Evolution occuring...is a FACT. If you don't accept that, you don't deserve an education.

"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981"

"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983"

Booyah

Actually I just finished another semester of Biology this last semester and received a B-, at a college level
Uhh I got all As in my last 5 bio classes. One of them was Organic Evolution. I ended one class with a 105....Evolution and Classification of Plants. You wouldn't happen to be in bio for nonmajors at Ohio Christian University would you? :jester:

Also the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is nothing. You are just taking a "snapshot" of the process when you examine micro evolution. they use the same mechanism and follow the same rules. Truly I want someone to show me how different micro and macro evolution are. I think it is something a lot of people use to satiate the creationists.
Can we please enable giving reputation points so I can give ktulu some props?
 
  • #199
Wow, we agree on a lot of things, Rattler. Not necessarily how to get there, but I feel like we have the same sensibilities, but the Supreme Court justices are among the main reasons I would not vote for any Republican. I find they don't follow the Constitution at all, in my opinion, and instead usually side with authoritarian interference. Especially on issues like search and seizure, assisted suicide, free speech, medical marijuana, abortion, and most other non-gun related personal freedoms. We had a relatively liberal Supreme Court for a lot of years there, and you still can own all your guns more easily than some carnivorous plants, so I don't think there's much to worry about there. A surprising number of liberals would be very upset if they came for our guns. :)

Capslock


how bout this Caps......we get the rulings through from the current supreme court that will rule that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, protected by the constitution. so that cities cant ban them like DC did, and ill go along with the more liberal judges to get the rest of the stuff through.....since the courts inseption we have one ruling on the second amendment and its a piss poor one. we NEED this ruling on the DC case and our current Supreme court line up is our best shot we are prolly ever going to have at getting it through.....they should rule on it in the next few months. after which we may be able to re evalate what kinda candidate im looking for.
 
  • #200
No theory or hypothesis can be proven true, they can only be proven false. This is the nature of science. The way we get "facts" is through continual failure to falsify a hypothesis.

We have a winner folks! DING! DING! DING!

That means you need to stop using your computer as the physics that allow electricity are false as it cant be proven true and is likely the result of a group of wizards down at the power plant who use the power lines and electric meters for show.

No it doesn't mean that we should stop using the computer. It means we should start using our brains and distinguish the differences between proving something as a universal truth and saying that "Through rigorous observation and testing we conclude x". There's a big difference.

Google scientific theories proven wrong. There are plenty of examples out there.
 
Back
Top