Why don't Republican officials accept science? 3 examples..

[Canna Sylvan]

Ok. Because I can't come up with right now the answer you want, does that disprove what I say? Where did I hear that? Oh yeah, you. Am I after fame? No.Do I have an agenda?You better believe it.How can I be alone?The"integrity"of science doesn't prevent it

 

[cannabineer]

Ok. Because I can't come up with right now the answer you want, does that disprove what I say? Where did I hear that? Oh yeah, you. Am I after fame? No.Do I have an agenda?You better believe it.How can I be alone?The"integrity"of science doesn't prevent it

It doesn't disprove it, but it doesn't support it either. I was only after discussion. I'll disengage. cn

 

[Canna Sylvan]

My point is very well made by what you say. Should my not having source preclude my posting? No. Should that prevent scientists from coming up with new ideas? No. Should you treat all with healthy skeptisism? Hell ya.

 

[Padawanbater2]

-antibiotics
-vaccines
-known locations of organisms not yet discovered, discovered in those exact locations

3 examples that would not work if evolution was a lie.

Can you explain that?

 

[Padawanbater2]

healthy skepticism =/= outright denial

 

[Canna Sylvan]

padwan,
Only you and those like you are claiming outright denial by me and those like me.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You called evolution a lie.

What don't you believe in?

 

[cannabineer]

My point is very well made by what you say. Should my not having source preclude my posting? No. Should that prevent scientists from coming up with new ideas? No. Should you treat all with healthy skeptisism? Hell ya.

Sources in hand would help me understand what you're saying. You seem to be saying something different each time. If I could nail down your thesis, I could discuss it more effectively. cn

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Aristotelian-Newtonian-Relativity;Ptolemy-Snell; etc. But evolution is still the theory of evolution when it is going on 200 years. I call bullshit. There's more correlation between Newton and Relativity than whats currently known with "evolution."

 

[Padawanbater2]

Aristotelian-Newtonian-Relativity;Ptolemy-Snell; etc. But evolution is still the theory of evolution when it is going on 200 years. I call bullshit. There's more correlation between Newton and Relativity than whats currently known with "evolution."

What about the theory of evolution do you disagree with? Be specific.

It really is a simple question..

The only thing you seem to be saying 25 pages in is "it shouldn't be called the theory of evolution, it's a different theory", when in fact, it is the exact same theory as Darwin outlined, only built upon, exactly how science works.

As shown using Higgs as an earlier example.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Do you expect Darwin to have everything mapped out 100% when DNA wouldn't be discovered until over a century later?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

My problem is things started out as a single celled organism, which we still have today. But how do we know some outside force didn't accelerated the process? All I see as proof positive is the micro, not macro, which I mentioned early on.

 

[UncleBuck]

do we have a bunch of righties in here expressing their skepticism of evolution now?



my proposal: disprove evolution, collect your prizes, become famous.

alternatively, shutting the fuck up and not getting in the way of progress would be nice.

 

[cannabineer]

My problem is things started out as a single celled organism, which we still have today. But how do we know some outside force didn't accelerated the process? All I see as proof positive is the micro, not macro, which I mentioned early on.

I can recommend two books. The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins, and Life Ascending by Nick Lane. The latter especially helped me fill in a lot of gaps, difficulties I had with the earliest history of life. It has me currently concluding that a panspermic influence was not needed and becomes the less elegant hypothesis. My opinion. cn

 

[Padawanbater2]

My problem is things started out as a single celled organism, which we still have today. But how do we know some outside force didn't accelerated the process? All I see as proof positive is the micro, not macro, which I mentioned early on.

As mentioned before, we don't know anything. That's not how science works, science doesn't deal with endless possibilities. It makes a guess based on an observation (hypothesis) and attempts to collect data and supporting evidence.

We can sit here all day and ask questions like the one you asked, there is simply no evidence to support the idea that an external force is responsible for accelerating the process of evolution.

Micro evolution is macro evolution on the smaller scale, they are exactly the same processes just over different periods of time. If you agree micro happens, by association, you agree that macro happens, too.

Do you agree with the explanation for the evolution of man going back a couple million years?

 

[k0ijn]

I thought this was the politics section -.-

Allow me to quote one of my favourite authors:

... science has always been in the values business. We simply cannot speak about facts without embracing certain values.
It's not that you can't get an "ought" from an "is," you simply can't get an "is" without embracing certain "oughts."
Consider the simplest statement of scientific fact. Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. This seems to be as value-free an utterance as human beings ever make. What do we do if someone doubts the truth of this proposition? What if someone comes forward and says, "I'm sorry, but that's not how I choose to think about water"? ...

What do we do with that person? All we can do is appeal to scientific values.
If a person doesn't share those values the conversation is over. We must appeal to the value of understanding the world.
The value of evidence - in this case some hundreds of years of evidence in chemistry.
The value of logical consistency? Much of what we believe about the world is predicated on the validity of our beliefs about the structure of water.
If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves someone should value it.
If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you invoke to show that they should value logic?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Bear,
I know Dawkins. He's a whiny bitch. I contend evolution is all there is with abiogenesis. But I read how man came from Africa 200k years ago, but human remains were found in Israel 2 years ago are 400k years old.DNA places man somewhat over 100k yr.

 

[cannabineer]

Bear,
I know Dawkins. He's a whiny bitch. I contend evolution is all there is with abiogenesis. But I read how man came from Africa 200k years ago, but human remains were found in Israel 2 years ago are 400k years old.DNA places man somewhat over 100k yr.

From a quick Net survey, the humanness and the age of the teeth (which is all they found) is not established. You might want to qualify some of your statements imo. cn

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Bucky,
I say it's the E.T. aliens. Righties want nothing to do with me. I agree with Intelligent Design, but those christian assholes treat me worse than evolutionists. What kind of bullshit is that?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Mountains of evidence and almost 2 centuries of study to support the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin, doesn't believe. Zero evidence to support panspermia or external intervention seeding life on Earth, believes it. Makes sense..

You are completely inconsistent. You hold science to an impossible standard while giving what you already believe a free pass to fact.