or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science is Real.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Science is Real. - Page 5

post #161 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It has everything to do with Evolution.

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's the best answer we have currently.

 

In your belief.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I still have my doubts as to your understanding.

 

Good for you. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Quote:
Fundamentalists don’t criticize researches when they come up with theories that explain electricity, or the role of vitamins in health, but they think scientists get things hopelessly wrong whenever they research about the origins of our species and the universe.

 

This is a clever and common propaganda technique which you have clearly fallen victim to. Connect things that are very will understand, testable, and quite scientific to something that is not testable and claim they are the same things.

 

1oyvey.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #162 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It has everything to do with Evolution.

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's the best answer we have currently.

 

In your belief.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I still have my doubts as to your understanding.

 

Good for you. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Quote:
Fundamentalists don’t criticize researches when they come up with theories that explain electricity, or the role of vitamins in health, but they think scientists get things hopelessly wrong whenever they research about the origins of our species and the universe.

 

This is a clever and common propaganda technique which you have clearly fallen victim to. Connect things that are very will understand, testable, and quite scientific to something that is not testable and claim they are the same things.

 

1oyvey.gif

Like I said I used to think of you as fairly intelligent. You might still be however clearly you don't understand the nature of science ( or don't choose to ). And  now I see though you just have a closed mind. Oh well.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #163 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Like I said I used to think of you as fairly intelligent. Clearly you don't understand the nature of science ( or don't choose to ).  Now I see though you just have a closed mind. Oh well.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

I see that the force (of "Evolution") appears to have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #164 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Like I said I used to think of you as fairly intelligent. Clearly you don't understand the nature of science ( or don't choose to ).  Now I see though you just have a closed mind. Oh well.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

I see that the force (of "Evolution") appears to have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

Thanks for your opinion and quips as well. Sorry. I enjoyed Star Wars however I was more of a Star Trek kind of guy.

 

Also One of the reasons I provide links to my arguments ( besides quoting someone who's more knowledgeable and might be able to explain it better than myself ) is to show that it's not just " My " opinion.1wink.gif


Edited by jimmac - 4/24/13 at 5:58pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #165 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Evolution is science.  It's VERY well supported.

 

Stop saying ridiculous things like that.

 

The basis of science is the scientific method. Surely you've heard of this? Evolution is the theory that the vast and wide diversity of life that we now witness has come about through the processes of random mutation/variation and natural selection ultimately resulting in the many varied species of plants and animals. The problem you have here is where and how this hypothesis is tested and validated? As this point, all that evolution is is a hypothesis about how the variety of life has come about. But there are no tests that validate this hypothesis.

 

I see the point that you are getting at, and it is an important one, but I'd like to correct a couple of things. Firstly, as you noted, it is the theory of evolution. While it was a hypothesis when Darwin initially proposed it, its broad applicability and complete consistency with the huge body of observation comprising the historical fossil record, historical genetic data and current genetic research, by definition, raise it to the level of a theory. Theories are not validated - they are only tested. That is also pertinent to your comment regarding testing and validation. The original hypothesis has been extensively tested by comparison with data, which is a perfectly valid form of testing - it does not have to comprise experiments to replicate the process - and that is why it is now accorded the status of theory. As another example to illustrate, astrophysicists do not need to replicate star formation itself to test the theories of gravitationally induced hydrogen cloud accretion and the consequential onset of hydrogen fusion - observation of evidence of the process having occurred is adequate.

 

That is not to say that the theory is proven - it is still falsifiable, most obviously either by new observations that are inconsistent with the theory or by new analysis that shows previous observations were incorrectly characterized as consistent. Either of those would represent scientific challenges that, if confirmed, would require the theory to be modified or discarded.

 

However, simply denying the validity of the theory, challenging it on the basis that it seems wrong or violates a belief, or simply asserting, without any new or revised data, that it is not correct, does not constitute a scientific challenge and is, by definition, unscientific. Arguing that it is unproven, as if that were a deficiency of the theory, and that one therefore disbelieves it, would also be unscientific since, by definition, all theories are unproven and the corollary of that statement is that you either choose to disbelieve all scientific theories or that otherwise you pick and choose on an unscientific basis.

post #166 of 249

I'm responding to the thread in general.

 

I am a libertarian, although a lot of libertarians consider me a "minarchist."

 

I don't have a strong opinion on global warming or the effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but I do know there is some political agenda, here.  It's a clandestine political agenda, too, because if were the end of the story that CO2 were bad, then all of the western world would be like France and get 80% of its electricity from nuclear fission.  If CO2 is such the demon, then nuclear is a solution that is available now, and it cuts CO2 emissions quite a lot.  France has a superb safety record with nuclear power, as well.

 

The problem here is the sale of CO2 offsets.  There are powerful people who want to mandate CO2 offsets so they themselves can profit.  Most are affiliated with the US Democratic party (especially Al Gore).  So, I am skeptical that the argument from the US democratic party-line, as well as that from sympathetic international governments, is really towards the end of decreasing CO2 emissions and not towards the end of profiting from CO2 offset payments.

 

If CO2 emissions and the resultant global warming were really the sleeping Godzilla the US political left bashes-on about, waiting to ruin Earth in a generation, then why don't we take all of medicare & welfare and shift that money towards research into clean energy research?  That would be a far greater public good.  I maintain that the US military is also of greater public good than medicare/welfare is, although that budget could certainly be shifted partially, or in whole, as well.  Either way, nothing significant is happening because the politicians really couldn't care less about the demise of Earth, the issue is rather the lining of pockets and maintenance of political power (so they can continue to line their pockets), as always.

Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #167 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

However, simply denying the validity of the theory, challenging it on the basis that it seems wrong or violates a belief, or simply asserting, without any new or revised data, that it is not correct, does not constitute a scientific challenge and is, by definition, unscientific. Arguing that it is unproven, as if that were a deficiency of the theory, and that one therefore disbelieves it, would also be unscientific since, by definition, all theories are unproven and the corollary of that statement is that you either choose to disbelieve all scientific theories or that otherwise you pick and choose on an unscientific basis.

 

Since I did not do either of those, I guess your point is in response to someone else.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #168 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

I'm responding to the thread in general.

 

I am a libertarian, although a lot of libertarians consider me a "minarchist."

 

I don't have a strong opinion on global warming or the effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but I do know there is some political agenda, here.  It's a clandestine political agenda, too, because if were the end of the story that CO2 were bad, then all of the western world would be like France and get 80% of its electricity from nuclear fission.  If CO2 is such the demon, then nuclear is a solution that is available now, and it cuts CO2 emissions quite a lot.  France has a superb safety record with nuclear power, as well.

 

The problem here is the sale of CO2 offsets.  There are powerful people who want to mandate CO2 offsets so they themselves can profit.  Most are affiliated with the US Democratic party (especially Al Gore).  So, I am skeptical that the argument from the US democratic party-line, as well as that from sympathetic international governments, is really towards the end of decreasing CO2 emissions and not towards the end of profiting from CO2 offset payments.

 

If CO2 emissions and the resultant global warming were really the sleeping Godzilla the US political left bashes-on about, waiting to ruin Earth in a generation, then why don't we take all of medicare & welfare and shift that money towards research into clean energy research?  That would be a far greater public good.  I maintain that the US military is also of greater public good than medicare/welfare is, although that budget could certainly be shifted partially, or in whole, as well.  Either way, nothing significant is happening because the politicians really couldn't care less about the demise of Earth, the issue is rather the lining of pockets and maintenance of political power (so they can continue to line their pockets), as always.

 

Quote:

If CO2 is such the demon, then nuclear is a solution that is available now, and it cuts CO2 emissions quite a lot.  France has a superb safety record with nuclear power

While we've gotten better at it over the years fission is still fraught with problems by it's very nature. What happened in Japan after the quake a couple of years ago is a good example. Fusion would be a much better, efficient, and safer process if we could just work out the problems of temperature and containment. And we're getting closer every day.

 

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

 

And

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

If CO2 emissions and the resultant global warming were really the sleeping Godzilla the US political left bashes-on about, waiting to ruin Earth in a generation, then why don't we take all of medicare & welfare and shift that money towards research into clean energy research?

I'd be asking the people who lobby in the opposite direction. It takes more than research. It takes the will to leave the old ways of doing things behind ( like the internal combustion engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_internal_combustion_engine do you know of any other important items we depend on for so much that are still done basically the same way following the same basic process as we did back in the 1850's ? ).


Edited by jimmac - 4/25/13 at 5:13pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #169 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

However, simply denying the validity of the theory, challenging it on the basis that it seems wrong or violates a belief, or simply asserting, without any new or revised data, that it is not correct, does not constitute a scientific challenge and is, by definition, unscientific. Arguing that it is unproven, as if that were a deficiency of the theory, and that one therefore disbelieves it, would also be unscientific since, by definition, all theories are unproven and the corollary of that statement is that you either choose to disbelieve all scientific theories or that otherwise you pick and choose on an unscientific basis.

 

Since I did not do either of those, I guess your point is in response to someone else.

 

No - my response was to you, and I was not accusing you of either of those - just illustrating what would constitute unscientific challenges to the theory of evolution. I'm not sure whether or not you fall into any of those categories - your assertion that evolution is not a well-supported theory may be based on research that falsifies it that I am not aware of. However, your assertion that it is an untested hypothesis is clearly incorrect.

post #170 of 249
Thread Starter 
And if MJ actually had evidence that falsified evolution, scientists would absolutely LOVE to see it. No joke. Many particle physicists were hoping CERN didn't find the Higgs as that would lead to more interesting questions rather than just confirmation of the expected.

That's something the dogmatic authoritarian bible thumpers don't seem to grasp. Scientists generally love major upheaval in their fields--but only when it's based on real evidence and not the bullshit creationists push.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #171 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

While we've gotten better at it over the years fission is still fraught with problems by it's very nature. What happened in Japan after the quake a couple of years ago is a good example. Fusion would be a much better, efficient, and safer process if we could just work out the kinks. And we're getting closer every day.

 

I'd have to disagree with the statement that we are getting closer every day. While technically that may be true, the rate of progress towards a controllable, energy-positive, practicable fusion process is very slow, and the end is nowhere in sight. Fission, on the other hand, if done carefully, is very safe. The Japanese version was very careless.

post #172 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - my response was to you, and I was not accusing you of either of those - just illustrating what would constitute unscientific challenges to the theory of evolution.

 

I agree.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

However, your assertion that it is an untested hypothesis is clearly incorrect.

 

Explain how it is tested exactly. How has the theory that the wide array of plant and animal life has emerged (evolved) through the process of random mutation and variation along with natural selection been tested? How is it even testable? We are talking about claims of things that have occurred in the past. How are those claims testable?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #173 of 249
Thread Starter 
Those links I provided earlier would help you understand, MJ. You asking these questions demonsrates a fundamental ignorance of the theory and its evidence. Nothing wrong with being ignorant, though, unless you stubbornly remain that way and masquerade as someone who isn't. Just go read and learn, dude. Seriously.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #174 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Those links I provided earlier would help you understand, MJ. You asking these questions demonsrates a fundamental ignorance of the theory and its evidence. Nothing wrong with being ignorant, though, unless you stubbornly remain that way and masquerade as someone who isn't. Just go read and learn, dude. Seriously.

 

Seriously dude: Explain how this theory can be tested and has been tested. This is a logic question.

 

You have so emphatically declared what is true and what is proven and so on. This should be stupid simple for you.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #175 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

However, your assertion that it is an untested hypothesis is clearly incorrect.

 

Explain how it is tested exactly. How has the theory that the wide array of plant and animal life has emerged (evolved) through the process of random mutation and variation along with natural selection been tested?

 

It has been tested by verifying that the observed current array of plant and animal life is consistently derived from the observed historical record of life by the processes described in the theory of evolution. To date, as far as I know, there have been no discoveries that contradict the theory. And I'm not really clear what the dispute is here - do you not believe that generic methodology to represent an adequate test of a hypothesis, do you accept that methodology but believe it to have been misapplied in this case, or is there something else troubling you about its status as a theory. Bear in mind that in the scientific method that you referred to previously, a theory is a broadly tested and unfalsified hypothesis. In fact the theory of evolution is often used in science education as a classic example of that category.

post #176 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It has been tested by verifying that the observed current array of plant and animal life is consistently derived from the observed historical record of life by the processes described in the theory of evolution.

 

So you're saying that the process of the evolution has actually been observed? Someone has actually seen this happen or is it that they see evidence that they interpret this way?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #177 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It has been tested by verifying that the observed current array of plant and animal life is consistently derived from the observed historical record of life by the processes described in the theory of evolution.

 

So you're saying that the process of the evolution has actually been observed? Someone has actually seen this happen or is it that they see evidence that they interpret this way?

 

No - I'm simply saying that the theory is consistent with all observations of data that it pertains to. In fact it has been directly observed in studies of short-lived, fast-breeding species, but since that is not broad evidence I'm happy to leave it out. And just to be clear - this has nothing to do with interpretation - the methodology simply involves making observations and then checking whether or not they are consistent with the theory. So far, all observations have been found to be consistent with the theory. Those observations do not validate the theory - they simply fail to falsify it. Once a hypothesis has been tested this way by extensive and broad observation, and not been falsified, it may become accepted as a theory.

 

I'm not sure how clearly I'm describing this so, to give what may seem a very trivial example, suppose that you were an ornithologist and had observed that blackbirds have black feathers. You might, at some point, float the hypothesis that a universal characteristic of blackbirds is that they have black feathers. After extensive further observation, by you and others, finding that no blackbirds have been discovered not to have black feathers, this might become MJ's Theory of Blackbirds. It would have been tested by sufficient observation and no counter-examples found. It might still be falsified tomorrow when I find a pink blackbird in my backyard, but until something like that happens it stands.

 

Now that example has a somewhat unrelated flaw in that theories, in general, are required to be reasonably broad in scope, and this one rather fails that test, but I think it illustrates the process.

post #178 of 249
Thread Starter 

MJ misunderstands the nature of science.  His misunderstanding of science doesn't invalidate science.

Quote:

Challenges to teaching evolution are often rooted in misunderstandings of what "science" is. Modern science seeks to explain natural phenomena in natural terms. Supernatural explanations fall outside of the boundaries of science. Scientific knowledge requires observations and evidence, but is more than a collection of facts. Observations must be confirmed numerous times by independent observers before they are accepted as scientific facts. Scientific facts serve as the basis for making testable explanations, or hypotheses, about the natural world. Hypotheses are subjected to various kinds of testing and modified as required by the results. They are also modified as required when new observations are obtained.

Evolution has been subjected to scientific testing for over a century, and has been (and continues to be) consistently confirmed by evidence from a wide range of scientific fields.

Above is from http://ncse.com/evolution/education/science-evolution.

 

Here's what scientific testing is about, MJ.  

 

 

Quote:
Testing scientific ideas
 
Testing Ideas
 

Testing hypotheses and theories is at the core of the process of science. Any aspect of the natural world could be explained in many different ways. It is the job of science to collect all those plausible explanations and to use scientific testing to filter through them, retaining ideas that are supported by the evidence and discarding the others. You can think of scientific testing as occurring in two logical steps: (1) if the idea is correct, what would we expectto see, and (2) does that expectation match what we actually observe? Ideas are supported when actual observations (i.e., results) match expected observations and are contradicted when they do not match. [BR's emphasis added]

 

If expected results/observation match actual results observation, that lends support. If they do not match, that helps refute.

 

 

 

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_06

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #179 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - I'm simply saying that the theory is consistent with all observations of data that it pertains to.

 

Now that is an honest and level-headed statement. Thanks.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And just to be clear - this has nothing to do with interpretation - the methodology simply involves making observations and then checking whether or not they are consistent with the theory. So far, all observations have been found to be consistent with the theory. Those observations do not validate the theory - they simply fail to falsify it.

 

Understood. However interpretation and presumptions are an important factor.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #180 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - I'm simply saying that the theory is consistent with all observations of data that it pertains to.

 

Now that is an honest and level-headed statement. Thanks.

 

Thanks for saying that but I can't claim credit for it - it is a simple statement of fact in respect of all theories.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And just to be clear - this has nothing to do with interpretation - the methodology simply involves making observations and then checking whether or not they are consistent with the theory. So far, all observations have been found to be consistent with the theory. Those observations do not validate the theory - they simply fail to falsify it.

 

Understood. However interpretation and presumptions are an important factor.

 

Well I'm not quite sure what you mean. There are no presumptions involved in a theory, which is simply an empirical explanation based on observation.  Theorems have presumptions, generally known as axioms, but they are quite different constructs, since they are deductive (from the axioms) rather than empirically derived from observation. Similarly, the observations should not be modified by interpretation, and one of the central pillars of the scientific method is avoidance of contamination of the data by anything beyond the observable. In most cases we "reduce" the data - a term that refers to mathematical or statistical manipulation into a more useable form, but that should be the extent of the process.

post #181 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

While we've gotten better at it over the years fission is still fraught with problems by it's very nature. What happened in Japan after the quake a couple of years ago is a good example. Fusion would be a much better, efficient, and safer process if we could just work out the kinks. And we're getting closer every day.

 

I'd have to disagree with the statement that we are getting closer every day. While technically that may be true, the rate of progress towards a controllable, energy-positive, practicable fusion process is very slow, and the end is nowhere in sight. Fission, on the other hand, if done carefully, is very safe. The Japanese version was very careless.

 

Quote:

The Japanese version was very careless.

Yes it's an older design. There's a guy up in Portland Oregon that designs reactors and he says if they had used his newer design the problems they had would have never happened. As far as Fusion goes I'd be surprised if we don't have a working model in less than 20 years now. One of the problems is that research in this area isn't very well funded. However they'd better get on the stick. Our appetite for energy doesn't seem to be getting less. In this article there's a link to an interview with Brian Cox and Stephen Hawking. Both are fusion advocates and as Cox says practical fusion is more of an engineering problem than a scientific one.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/23/fusion-power-is-it-getting-closer

 

Here's the link to the interview with Cox and Hawking if you're interested. Their comments on fusion are brief but the rest of the interview is interesting.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/11/science-stephen-hawking-brian-cox


Edited by jimmac - 4/25/13 at 5:31pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #182 of 249
Thread Starter 

MJ, what do you believe the age of the Earth is?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #183 of 249
Thread Starter 

So, MJ, you may not know the precise age of the Earth, but on what order of magnitude do you believe the age to be?

 

Thousands of years old? 

Millions?

Billions?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #184 of 249

If he says 4 billion years instead of 4.54 billion years will you have him put in a reeducation camp to work his ignorance out of him?

 

If he says 5 billion years instead of 4.54 billion years will you deny him the right to speech, to vote or demand control of his daughter's body?

 

If he says 3 billion years instead of 4.54 billion years will you demand he give up economic, political and philosophical self-interest and do you as you demand for him?

 

The point isn't what he believes the number to be. The real point is what you believe you are allowed to do to him and to deny him when you declare his number is wrong.

 

You would deny him and others their human civil rights. Your reasoning only grants said rights to people who answer as you do.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #185 of 249
Thread Starter 

You are barking up wrong tree, as usual.  I do not advocate revoking anyone's rights.  You are just making shit up completely.

 

Pay attention, because I'm only going to say this to you one more time.

 

I do not believe society should take science-deniers seriously.  I also do not believe that we should strip anyone of their rights to speak, vote, or run for office.  I want society to be educated enough to not elect these nitwits in the first place.  

 

So, in summary, your depiction of me is completely divorced from reality.

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #186 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I do not advocate revoking anyone's rights.  You are just making shit up completely.

 

That's simply not true. You've repeatedly shown that you would revoke some people's rights, even if only partially.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Pay attention, because I'm only going to say this to you one more time.

 

 

Can we hold you to that?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I do not believe society should take science-deniers seriously.

 

 

Fair enough. Then we'll stop* taking you seriously.

 

 

*Don't be fooled into thinking that we ever actually have.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #187 of 249
Thread Starter 

You just admitted you deny science.  On what order of years do you believe the age of the Earth is?  Thousands?  Millions?  Billions?  Care to answer, or are you embarrassed for some reason?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #188 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You are barking up wrong tree, as usual.  I do not advocate revoking anyone's rights.  You are just making shit up completely.

 

I'm not making shit. You declared quite clearly that you would deny women the right to control their own body by mandating the HPV virus to prevent a very small prevalence of cancer under the guise of herd immunity. That is revoking their rights. You've also declared that people ought not be allowed full rights and participation dozens of times.

Quote:

Pay attention, because I'm only going to say this to you one more time.

 

I do not believe society should take science-deniers seriously.  I also do not believe that we should strip anyone of their rights to speak, vote, or run for office.  I want society to be educated enough to not elect these nitwits in the first place.

 

You equated what you declare to be "science-deniers" to be akin to intentionally trapping people in a burning theater. You did not start the thread with the premise of it being about politics and who is elected. In fact it was quite the opposite. Let's revisit that opening statement.

Quote:
Science is real.  It's not a Democrat thing.  It's not a Republican thing.  It's not an Anarcho-Insanist Thing.  It's reality.  Reality doesn't give two shits whether you believe in it or not.  I, however, do.  Those who continually insist on distorting or plain old denying science are akin to assholes blocking the only exits during a fire--not only preventing people from getting out, but doing their best to keep the firemen from getting in.  They have the audacity of telling those firemen that no fire actually exists as the room burns in front of them.

You are outright lying now. You specifically declared it wasn't at all about politics and instead said that those who disagree with you are akin to mass murders.

Quote:
So, in summary, your depiction of me is completely divorced from reality.

Sorry but you've been hoisted upon your own petard. Perhaps if you stopped using violent analogies for those you disagree with, they'd stop thinking you actually mean what you type. Crazy concept I know.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #189 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 You've also declared that people ought not be allowed full rights and participation dozens of times.

 

 

 

Quote:

Pay attention, because I'm only going to say this to you one more time.

 

Someone didn't pay attention.  Go troll somewhere else.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #190 of 249
Thread Starter 

Herd immunity is real.  Vaccines save lives.  Anti-vaxxers have blood on their hands.

 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/04/30/pertussis_video_psa_about_the_dangers_of_whooping_cough.html

Quote:

I really, really wish I didn’t have to post something like this. I wish it didn’t exist at all. But it does, so I must. Warning: this video is very difficult to watch, and may be upsetting to people.

 
 

As a parent—as a human being—watching that video tears my heart out.

These outbreak of pertussis and measles are happening all over the world, and that includes the United States. Last week, a baby in Orange County, Florida, died of whooping cough. We nearly lost a baby in a recent outbreak in my home town of Boulder, Colorado—an affluent, well-educated town, on average. These diseases are highly contagious, but they are also preventable.

That's why I can’t say this enough. Talk to your board-certified doctor, and if they say so, get your TDaP booster, make sure your other shots are up-to-date, and get your family vaccinated. Tell your friends, tell your family, tell everyone.

Because it’s just this simple, and it’s not hyperbole: The fewer people who are vaccinated, the greater the chance a preventable disease will run rampant. And the vicitms are usually those who don't have any say in the matter.

Dana McCaffery

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #191 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 You've also declared that people ought not be allowed full rights and participation dozens of times.

 

Quote:

Pay attention, because I'm only going to say this to you one more time.

 

Someone didn't pay attention.  Go troll somewhere else.

 

That's right. You call people trolls and you are projecting. You've also broken your word because you are saying it again.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Herd immunity is real.  Vaccines save lives.  Anti-vaxxers have blood on their hands.

 

 

So your solution to the anti-vaxxers as you call them, who are not politicians, is to do what since they have "blood on their hands"? People who are mass murders by trapping people in burning buildings and people who have blood on their hands by assisting in "murder" when homosexual teens commit suicide or when they "murder" by not vaccinating a child for HPV, your solution is what for all these terrible and alleged crimes?

 

Whooping cough - airborne transmission

Measles - airborne transmission

HPV - sexual transmission

 

One of these things are not like the other. People who understand science understand this and wouldn't demand a woman lose control of her body to assuage fears of crazy authoritarians.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #192 of 249
Thread Starter 

Ah, the right wing prudes demonizing sex again.  People can be carriers of HPV without knowing, just as they can be for whooping cough.  But, since it involves sex, the conservatives are apoplectic.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #193 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ah, the right wing prudes demonizing sex again.  People can be carriers of HPV without knowing, just as they can be for whooping cough.  But, since it involves sex, the conservatives are apoplectic.  

 

You are humorously desperate and also trapped by your own words. The only person demonizing sex is the person declaring that women must sacrifice their own autonomy. Stop worrying that a woman and her dirty uterus per you is going to kill the herd. The reasoning behind it is no different than screaming that she's a slut and thus will harm others and must be stopped. Get over it and come back out of the stone age.

 

There's also this little question you keep side-stepping. Don't worry I'm sure a few people on here will probably put it to you every time you ask about the age of the earth.

 

So your solution to the anti-vaxxers as you call them, who are not politicians, is to do what since they have "blood on their hands"? People who are mass murders by trapping people in burning buildings and people who have blood on their hands by assisting in "murder" when homosexual teens commit suicide or when they "murder" by not vaccinating a child for HPV, your solution is what for all these terrible and alleged crimes?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #194 of 249
Thread Starter 

This is why it isn't worth talking to you at all, a lesson that I apparently fail at remembering.  You aren't bounded by reality or truth.  You make shit up, create horrendous, vicious lies about people (your whole disgusting on the verge of violence meme), and don't appear to give two shits about it.  

 

What trumpet posts are the online analogues of the Gish Gallop.  

 


Edited by BR - 5/1/13 at 9:20am

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #195 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

This is why it isn't worth talking to you at all, a lesson that I apparently fail at remembering.  You aren't bounded by reality or truth.  You make shit up, create horrendous, vicious lies about people (your whole disgusting on the verge of violence meme), and don't appear to give two shits about it.  

 

What trumpet posts are the online analogues of the Gish Gallop.  

 

 

People who are mass murders by trapping people in burning buildings and people who have blood on their hands by assisting in "murder" when homosexual teens commit suicide or when they "murder" by not vaccinating a child for HPV, your solution is what for all these terrible and alleged crimes?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #196 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You just admitted you deny science.  On what order of years do you believe the age of the Earth is?  Thousands?  Millions?  Billions?  Care to answer, or are you embarrassed for some reason?

 

Hmm, MJ still has actually provided an answer. Shocking.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #197 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You just admitted you deny science.  On what order of years do you believe the age of the Earth is?  Thousands?  Millions?  Billions?  Care to answer, or are you embarrassed for some reason?

 

Hmm, MJ still has NOT actually provided an answer. Shocking.

Edit: "not" is a very important word
Edited by BR - 5/2/13 at 9:17am

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #198 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You just admitted you deny science.  On what order of years do you believe the age of the Earth is?  Thousands?  Millions?  Billions?  Care to answer, or are you embarrassed for some reason?

 

Hmm, MJ still has NOT actually provided an answer. Shocking.

Edit: "not" is a very important word

 

 

Hmm, BR still has NOT actually provided an answer. Shocking.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #199 of 249

Funny thing is, I did answer. My answer was that I don't know.

 

But BR is a troll, so...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #200 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Funny thing is, I did answer. My answer was that I don't know.

 

But BR is a troll, so...

Personal attack aside, I can help you out then.  I'll pretend that you aren't dodging the question, hiding a belief one way or the other.  I'm just somewhat surprised you are unable or unwilling to narrow it down to thousands, millions, or billions of years. Perhaps I am wrong in my impression that you are a young Earth creationist.  You parrot their faulty arguments about evolution, and those arguments seem to go hand in hand with young-Eartherism.  Anyway...

 

Short answer: Between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old.

 

 

Long answer: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html

 

I hope you've learned something.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Science is Real.