What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. 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!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
As compared to evolution and the many gaping holes in the evolution "theory" that has gradually morphed into being fact. To claim it is even a theory anymore that cna be challenged is to get clobbered by the media, etc. as being backward, unscientific, etc. What a sad state of affairs. I swear the ability of the American public to rationally think through issues is in serious decline.
Click to expand...
Because you have to be a complete and total ****ing retard to do so. You might as well be claiming the Earth is the center of the universe and stars are just points of light positioned on the celestial sphere. Seriously, point out one of these "holes" that have become "facts".

Forgetting of course that a scientific theory explains facts and even if the theory was 100% wrong, it still would not change the facts which all point to life evolving.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
As compared to evolution and the many gaping holes in the evolution "theory" that has gradually morphed into being fact. To claim it is even a theory anymore that cna be challenged is to get clobbered by the media, etc. as being backward, unscientific, etc. What a sad state of affairs. I swear the ability of the American public to rationally think through issues is in serious decline.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO

Thanks. I needed a good belly laugh today.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
If I thought there was one iota of openness in you to have a reasonable discussion, I'd answer your questions. But I've found you're modus operandi is to attack me if I don't parrot the things you believe.
Click to expand...

Not at all, Bob.

All I ask is that if you seek to discredit science, that you play by the rules of the scientific method.

If you don't believe the hypothesis of climate change, why not? What evidence has convinced you otherwise?

Assuming you don't like that particular hypothesis, then what alternative hypothesis do you have that can explain the data we've collected showing significant changes in our climate?

I think these are reasonable questions to ask of any skeptic. All I'm asking is for you to show me your reasons for skepticism.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
As compared to evolution and the many gaping holes in the evolution "theory" that has gradually morphed into being fact. To claim it is even a theory anymore that cna be challenged is to get clobbered by the media, etc. as being backward, unscientific, etc. What a sad state of affairs. I swear the ability of the American public to rationally think through issues is in serious decline.
Click to expand...

I would be sympathetic if the so-called candidate theories were anything other than fig leaves for religious beliefs. Evolution, as a theory, is continually being refined, but the refinement of that theory doesn't weaken it, it strengthens it. As for the perceived "hammering," I've never seen it and every statement of evolution I've ever heard has been very specific about it being both fact and theory, depending on usage. If we are talking about whether things evolve the answer is that is a fact -- things DO evolve, that's proven. If we are talking about whether evolution and more specifically natural selection is a driving engine behind the changes in the fossile record, that's a theory albeit an extremely well-supported one. In this, evolution is exactly like gravity. I have no doubt if a magic book proclaimed we are held to the earth by the hand of God, there would be anti-gravitationists getting funding from Bob Jones University and composing 60% of the Republican presidential nomination field, too.

Gravity? Well, let's not rush to judgment.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Foxton said:
Because you have to be a complete and total ****ing retard to do so. You might as well be claiming the Earth is the center of the universe and stars are just points of light positioned on the celestial sphere. Seriously, point out one of these "holes" that have become "facts".

Forgetting of course that a scientific theory explains facts and even if the theory was 100% wrong, it still would not change the facts which all point to life evolving.
Click to expand...
Oh, don't be ridiculous. If you pay any attention to what people say and write, the scientific community brokers little questioning of evolution and ridicules those who do. Obviously I was making a generalization, and not everybody claims it's fact.

Just one huge hole in it is how various bodily functions came into being when they are massively intricate and would require a huge number of things to all evolve in very complex ways at the same time. Try reading up on just this one gaping hole in evolution. It'll knock your socks off if your mind isn't entirely closed.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
Oh, don't be ridiculous. If you pay any attention to what people say and write, the scientific community brokers little questioning of evolution and ridicules those who do. Obviously I was making a generalization, and not everybody claims it's fact.

Just one huge hole in it is how various bodily functions came into being when they are massively intricate and would require a huge number of things to all evolve in very complex ways at the same time. Try reading up on just this one gaping hole in evolution. It'll knock your socks off if your mind isn't entirely closed.
Click to expand...
Lol, irreducible complexity. Maybe you should read up on the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case where the person who came up with that was utterly destroyed for having no knowledge on the subject he claimed to be an expert of.

You still haven't produced one hole because not one example of irreducible complexity has every been given, merely rehashed with the hope someone won't notice it's already been refuted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
On Behe.

How bout an index of creationists claims and their rebuttal.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
As compared to evolution and the many gaping holes in the evolution "theory" that has gradually morphed into being fact. To claim it is even a theory anymore that cna be challenged is to get clobbered by the media, etc. as being backward, unscientific, etc. What a sad state of affairs. I swear the ability of the American public to rationally think through issues is in serious decline.
Click to expand...

Bob, are really trying to say the Theory of Evolution is wrong? Seriously? It's about as close to being "Darwin's Law of Evolution" as it could be.

If you are so inclined, you can certainly believe that God started the evolutionary process or even guides it to an extent, but that's a philosophical/religious question, not a scientific one. Christ, even the Catholic Church, not exactly known for being at the forefront of science, recognizes evolution as sound science - I was taught about Darwin throughout my catholic school days.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
Oh, don't be ridiculous. If you pay any attention to what people say and write, the scientific community brokers little questioning of evolution and ridicules those who do. Obviously I was making a generalization, and not everybody claims it's fact.

Just one huge hole in it is how various bodily functions came into being when they are massively intricate and would require a huge number of things to all evolve in very complex ways at the same time. Try reading up on just this one gaping hole in evolution. It'll knock your socks off if your mind isn't entirely closed.
Click to expand...

Read this quote today, felt it appropriate to the discussion:

Asked by Galileo to look through his telescope at the newly discovered four moons of Jupiter, a representative of the pope answered: "I refuse to look at something which my religion tells me cannot exist."
Click to expand...
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
Just one huge hole in it is how various bodily functions came into being when they are massively intricate and would require a huge number of things to all evolve in very complex ways at the same time.
Click to expand...

Bob, this is a rather infamous red herring, rebutted thoroughly. I imagine the strongest threats to evolution come from evolutionary biology itself, and involve picking around at the edges of processes. The core -- the full Monty of it -- has passed scientific scrutiny, and none of the candidate Creationist theories passes even a rudimentary definition of a scientific theory.

Our senses and their instrument extensions discover whats.

Science tests hypothetical hows.

Philosophies, including theology, dictate whys.

When one discipline tries to invade the territory of the others, it embarrasses itself and wastes everybody's time.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

walrus said:
So is the money, follow the money
Click to expand...

I respect the **** outta ya, walrus, but you couldn't be more wrong here if you tried. The money on the side of climate science is less than a boil on the arse of ExxonMobil, to say nothing of the entire corporate anti-climate lobby.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Kepler said:
Bob, this is a rather infamous red herring, rebutted thoroughly. I imagine the strongest threats to evolution come from evolutionary biology itself, and involve picking around at the edges of processes. The core -- the full Monty of it -- has passed scientific scrutiny, and none of the candidate Creationist theories passes even a rudimentary definition of a scientific theory.

Our senses and their instrument extensions gives us whats.

Science gives us hows.

Philosophies, including theology, posit whys.

When one discipline tries to invade the territory of the others, it embarrasses itself and wastes everybody's time.
Click to expand...
See, this is the problem. If you don't think any of the theories hold water, then you don't just pick the least bad one, which is what most evolution believers have done. You say none of them fit. But, you have to believe in something, so you pick evolution and then avoid looking at the problems with it.

Why are people so fanatical in resisting any questioning of evolution?

There are substantial blocks of scientists out there that question evolution to varying degrees. An obvious example:
http://http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
But, hey, no reason to listen to many hundreds of scientists.

From the FAQ on the site: "In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism. The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural world."
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural world."
Click to expand...

Because Darwin hasn't been subject to an open examination over the last 150 years? We're not exactly talking about a recent scientific development, here.

Christ Bob, why don't you dig up some Anti-Newtonian "physicists" as proof that our entire understanding of physics is just a myth, too. I'm sure there's some out there.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
See, this is the problem. If you don't think any of the theories hold water, then you don't just pick the least bad one, which is what most evolution believers have done. You say none of them fit. But, you have to believe in something, so you pick evolution and then avoid looking at the problems with it.

Why are people so fanatical in resisting any questioning of evolution?
Click to expand...

Well, why don't you start with actually questioning evolution, instead of complaining about how people don't listen to you, or citing a PDF with a laundry list of names?

This is the thing about science - you have to actually offer proof to the contrary. If you have some empirical evidence, let's hear it.

If you're just going to offer innuendo and conspiracy theories, you're getting shot down because your evidence stinks, not just because you disagree.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

unofan said:
Because Darwin hasn't been subject to an open examination over the last 150 years? We're not exactly talking about a recent scientific development, here.

Christ Bob, why don't you dig up some Anti-Newtonian "physicists" as proof that our entire understanding of physics is just a myth, too. I'm sure there's some out there.
Click to expand...
Newtonian physics are true, so evolution must also be? Wow, that's great thinking on that one. I expected too much to have people actually think outside their preconceived notions. A waste of my time.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
Newtonian physics are true, so evolution must also be? Wow, that's great thinking on that one. I expected too much to have people actually think outside their preconceived notions. A waste of my time.
Click to expand...

No, Newtonian physics are true because they've been tested and proven valid. Evolution is likewise true because it also has been tested numerous times and proven correct.

Not believing in evolution as a biological process is as idiotic as not believing in newtonian physics.

I posited an analogy, not a causal relationship.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

blockski said:
Well, why don't you start with actually questioning evolution, instead of complaining about how people don't listen to you, or citing a PDF with a laundry list of names?

This is the thing about science - you have to actually offer proof to the contrary. If you have some empirical evidence, let's hear it.

If you're just going to offer innuendo and conspiracy theories, you're getting shot down because your evidence stinks, not just because you disagree.
Click to expand...

I'm just offering proof that there are lots of reputable people out there that question evolution, which some on here claim is simple fact. But, when people are so locked into their view, even many hundreds of scientists saying they question a theory doesn't count a wit, eh? People won't even concede that there is anything to question, let alone us getting into a detailed discussion of questioning it. Sheesh.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

amherstblackbear said:
I respect the **** outta ya, walrus, but you couldn't be more wrong here if you tried. The money on the side of climate science is less than a boil on the arse of ExxonMobil, to say nothing of the entire corporate anti-climate lobby.
Click to expand...
You're probably right, I still say follow the money. There is money to be made either way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top