Science & Technology

Rant

Liberal Arguments Conradict Each other

Posted 37 months ago|94 comments|652 views
Written by
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
I just finished watching an interview on Cavuto with Dan Wise of the Center for American progress. Cavuto did put his feet to the fire, but could have done better. Mr. Wise, on the other hand "wisely" dodged a lot of the questions.

My beef, Mr. Wise stated that evidence of global warming can be seen in Colorado, where the pine bark beetle can be seen eating trees where it was once to cold. Good evidence, I can agree, but my problem with it is that for the same liberals who will agree with Mr. Wise, there is another argument to make. This will make the evidence contradictory, there for showing no basis in either argument.

Now Follow along. Most liberals do not agree with the Intelligent Design theory of creation, they conform with Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Next, this being the only theory they accept to be taught in our public schools, it has to be accepted as true (at least to the liberal). Well, using the Evolution theory, if I were a liberal, I would have to make the argument that this pine bark beetle is now eating trees in Colorado because it has "EVOLVED", adapted in order to survive in the cold. This blows a hole in Mr. Wise's argument that the beetle is there because it got warmer.

As one can clearly see the liberals want to have there cake and eat it too. They want to use contradictory arguments to prove the same thing. That is not how the LOGICAL world works. This is just one small little snippet showing the Global Warming fraud.

Thanks for taking the time reading this.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Welcome to RantRave!

I have to say there are many things that are contradictory in evolution, i personally am skeptical. But there is really zero evidence for intelligent design too.

What needs to happen is all ideas need to be taught to our children, and then we tell them "WE HAVE NO IDEA, when you grow up, why don't you try to figure it out."
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: My purpose was not to support Intelligent design, even though I am a supporter of it, nor was is it diminish Evolution. My purpose was to put myself into a "liberal mindset" and use their side of two issues to show that they can't have their cake and eat it to. I do appreciate your comments as I have not written like this since my senior year ogf College in 1994, and will use it to make my writings more clear.
37 months ago: Billberoo, I don't see how this is contradictory.

"...stated that evidence of global warming can be seen in Colorado, where the pine bark beetle can be seen eating trees where it was once to cold."

The pine bark beetle has a range of tolerance for temperature. Before, Colorado was too cold for it to live in. Now do to global warming, Colorado is more in its range of tolerance.

The beetle did not evolve to have a more general range of tolerance. The environment changed, making it more suitable to its range of tolerance.

Hope this helped.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Can you prove that, I say it evolved, or adapted just as Darwin says, and is forcibly being taught in our public schools. Are you say evolution has nothing to do with this???
37 months ago: Seriously, I am having trouble deciphering your post.

What I am saying is that evolution didn't cause Colorado to become a suitable habbitat for the beetle. I am saying that climate change caused Colorado to become a suitable place for the beetle.

If evolution is being forcibly taught, complain to your school district, not me.

Personally, I hold the Creation theory and Evolution theory equally true.

The way I see it, if God can create something as complex and beautiful as the universe, then it is in no way out of his power to create evolution. Saying that evolution doesn't exist is an insult to the limitless power of God, from my Christian point of view. In the bible, it says God created man in his image. It doesn't say "how" he did this.

In the bible it says God created the universe in 6 days. It also says that time has no meaning in heavan, which could mean that 6 days to him is billions of years to us.

Again this is my point of view. I am not trying to start a creationist vs. evolutionist debate. I am just throwing in my two cents. If you believe that evolution is completly wrong, good for you. If you believe that creationism is completly wrong, good for you too. I am not here to prove or dissprove either side. So please don't get angry and call me a god-hating liberal or a stupid creationism nazi.
37 months ago: Also, just as a side note, the two arguments arn't contridictory.

The argument that the climate changed making the environment suitable for the beetle doesn't contradict the argument that the beetle evolved to be better suited for the environment. Personally I believe the climate change one but possibly both could have happened. A combination of evolution and climate change could have made the Colorado environment more suitable for the beetle.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Not Calling you any thing bad. Just trying to make a point that those on the left side usually hold both global warming and Evolution as truths. Therefore only one or the other can be true. If it is a combination of both then one Mr. Dan Wise cannot point this out as evidence of Global warming because there are other factors involved namely Evolution, which he does not articulate. Next month there will be some person maybe even Dane Wise using this same beetle to support Evolution with out stating it maybe in Colorado because of global warming.

I personal do believe some of the global warming arguments, but do not believe it to be as bad as the enviro-fascists say it is. But you can't as this guy stated say that because of global warming Colorado's tree's are being eaten. This is what the environmental movement is doing all over the spectrum, stating half truths as fact, and some people are listening.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Hmm, DangerRanger, you have officially convinced me to change my mind about the Evolution/Creation debate.

I'm with you on that one!

As for the original poster, you are correct, they always make things worse then they seem to be. It's called politics. Figures, huh.
37 months ago: Billyberoo, both Evolution and Global Warming can be held as truths.

Evolution concerns the ideas of biological and natural processes like reproduction and natural selection.

Global warming concerns the ideas of greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect, etc.

Evolution and Global Warming are not two conflicting philosophies. They both explain aspects the natural world. Global warming and Evolution are unlike Capitalism and Socialism which are two conflicting philosophies about how to run economices and societies.

If the scientist has reasonable proof that shows that Colorado has been warming to a more suitable range of tolerance for the beetle, then it is not contridictory to say that global warming has caused the beetle to move to colorado, not evolution. This is just saying that in this particular case, it is more likely that global climate change caused the beetle to move to Colorado rather than evolution.

In other cases, like the insects becoming resistant to pesticides over multipule generations, it is more reasonable to say that evolution has caused the insects to become more resistant. This is becuase there is more evidence that supports evolution as the main cuase rather than any other thing.

In some conservative circles (not that this is wrong), some find abortion wrong but war against terrorism beneficial. These two ideas seem to contradict eachother, since in one idea the loss of life is bad while in the other, specific loss of life is good. However, if one looks at it more closely, one can see how the two are too different to compare. One idea involves the life of an un-borned child. The other idea involves protecting innocent lives through drastic measures.

I hope that I could better explain this.
37 months ago: Tom, I'm glad to see that we now share the same opinions on the whole creationism vs evolution debate. I just thought about it once and thats what seemed to make the most sense to me.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Well thanks for the talk. I understand both views. Maybe my mathematical background, keeping me from understanding this as both of you do. I did learn that I do have to work on my writing... a lot
37 months ago: By Jove, I think he's got it.
Billy, consider this too.
(Are you listening dangerderainger?)
Genesis' description of what was created on 1 of 6 days, is actually a dumbed down explanation (to us ignorant humans) of evolution.
Genesis Chapter 2 verse 4 contains the following quote:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

Each day of creation is a "generation". A "generation" could be 1 million, or 1 billion years,etc.

To reiterate, the Bible in Genesis describes Evolution itself. Evolution is part of God's creation.

This could be convenient.
37 months ago: Yay, redstateguy, we agree on this!!!

I am so happy. We might disagree on things here and there, but I am happy that we agree on this point.

Billy, thats cool that you have a math background. Some of the concepts are very difficult to grasp. If you wanted to explain to me some of the concepts, you might need a full-length book (preferbly with pictures) and maybe a short length movie.

Lol, i'm glad I helped explain it better.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Should a biologist get into the fray here or just let you all work it out. You seem to be doing relatively well. I'm impressed with DangerRanger's knowledge of the subject.

I would like to point out and confirm a bit of what DangerRanger mentioned with regard to the pine beetle. It is a common misconception by people who think they understand evolutionary theory well, but actually do not, that evolution has to do with adapting. Actually, evolution has nothing to do with adapting. It has to do with the selection of pre-existing traits.

Let me put it this way, if you don't mind...

Evolution does not create the changes in the genetics. Evolution changes the frequency of the genetics.

It is a common misunderstanding, unfortunately far too many people teaching biology don't really get this at a fundamental level.

According to Darwinian evolution the warm weather wouldn't be able to change the genetics of the beetle. The Darwinian approach asserts that in any population of organisms, there is natural variation. Changes in any aspect of the ecosystem of the organisms can confer survival advantage on to certain variations within that population causing them to live and pass on their genes. This is how the frequency of genes changes due to outside forces (call them selection factors). If the pine beetle cannot survive in cold temperatures, it cannot survive. It cannot adapt to survive unless it learns how to knit a sweater from Aunt Sally.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: The concept of adapting is a misapplication of evolutionary theory constantly explained in an erroneous fashion on the Nature, Discovery, Science, and History channel, I'm guessing because the writers either don't get it or are too lazy. They say, the crocodile adapted to it's environment so it has fierce jaws to take down an antelope. Huh? No, there were some crocs with fierce jaws and some with lesser. Fierce ones got more food and survived to reproduce. There was no adapting involved. There explanations fall under a discarded theory of evolution by Lamarck. He's the one who said that giraffes have long necks because one giraffe stretched his neck to reach the food and passed that trait on to its offspring. Well, this would imply that all of Arnold Schwarznegger's children should be born with giant muscles. No, no, no, Lamarckian evolution in this thread please!
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Billyberoo,
First off, you are incorrect that only liberals accept the scientifically validated Darwinian theory of evolution as it has been modified over time by the likes of Margulis and Gould. I am an independent, and I accept it. I also pray you are incorrect in your ancillary assertion that all conservatives prefer intelligent design. I would call Pope John Paul II a conservative. Wouldn't you? Before he died, he pronounced that all Catholics should accept Darwin. see: http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html if you doubt this or have forgotten.

Next up, Darwin's Black Box is one of the premier texts written on Intelligent Design theory. My class of AP Biology students debunked some of it's fundamental premises in a week's long debate. If high school kids can debunk it, what do you think a world famous molecular biologist like Richard Dawkins would do to it? Well, he wrote a book called The Blind Watchmaker to refute most of Behe's Black Box concepts.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: In any case, here's the truth. We don't know and evolutionary theory is not incompatible with the concept that some grand intelligence out there in the universe created all live in the universe according to a grand design. No one can or cannot prove this. In science, we do not try to prove what we cannot. We cannot prove that God exists, therefore we cannot use God to explain why volcanoes erupt or people have sickle-cell anemia. We hypothesize the simplest explanations, we experiment and test them over and over and over again, we develop these after surviving the test of time into things scientists call theories, and then eventually into laws after centuries more. In science a theory is not like people use it in murder mystery shows, "I have a theory that John bumped off Sue." A theory in science is a body of research, evidence, and thought that explains something that has survived the test of time and for which there is presently no contradictory evidence in existence on earth that we know of. When we scientists say, The Theory of Evolution is as close to saying the Law of Gravity as we can go without a couple hundred more years of research.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: When Darwin published his Theory in Origin of Species, DNA and the science of genetics hadn't been discovered. They are both products of the early to mid 1900s. What add so much credibility to Darwin's Evolutionary Theory is that nearly every aspect of his theory has been validated by our understanding of basic and then molecular genetics. Meanwhile, since his publication, many prominent minds have worked tirelessly to outwit him, and they have largely failed. The only major successes we know of when it comes to modifying the theory are as follows:
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Darwin believed that the selective forces worked on populations (he called this natural selection but he was also very aware of the capacity for humans to serve in the role of natural selection when it came to horse, pigeon, and flower breeding) over a long period of time. He believed it could take thousands if not millions of years for species to evolve.

We now know that punctuated equilibrium can occur and there can, probably because of giant natural calamities (I don't know like global warming or the ice age) that cause periods of extreme speciation (the evolution of massive numbers of new species and the extinction of many more).

It's not that evolution doesn't take a long time, it's that it can happen very rapidly as well.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Darwin believed that survival of the fittest was the chief motivating factor in survival. If you could out compete another in you species or another species all together for food, successful matings, habitat, and so on, you would survive and pass your pre-existing traits on to your offspring.

The concept of survival of the fittest has been co-opted by American economics and business for a over a century as it is a compelling model.

Unfortunately, Darwin wasn't quite right on this point. We now know thanks to the work of Lynn Margulis, that cooperation is the more compelling force in the evolution of species not competition. In fact, organisms that live in the better harmony with their environment and their food chain do better at surviving and passing on their traits. She is the originator of the concept of symbiosis. Most people have heard of this in the form of mutualism whereby two organisms live in harmony both benefiting equally. But symbiosis comes in other forms: commensalism – one benefits, one doesn't care; predation – one eats another, and parasitism – one lives off the other and harms the other slightly. Symbiosis is the theory that organisms are in a web of mutual existence where each depends on the lives of many others. Those that posses the pre-existing traits for the greatest co-habitation, survive and reproduce offspring inheriting these genes. So, it isn't outdoing your competition as much as it is being able to interact in the most harmonious and beneficial way. This might include eating your rival company or it might include working with the suppliers better than your rival company. In the end, it's still who's the most fit, but fitness is redefined to include those who work best together.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Thank you for allowing me to indulge a bit on this topic. I've been wanting to for some time, ever since Tom Wing first mentioned doubts toward evolutionary theory.

I am happy to answer any questions or provide more examples, explanations, and so on. I'm also happy to debate Intelligent Design any time.
37 months ago: When will those Texans evolve? Yikes! This is proof! A transplant from NY? Ya'll have been real lucky until now.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Siempre, I never stated anything about Creationism, Intelligent design is not the same. I never stating any thing about the Bible's assertion is true.

I'm not a liberal. I do believe, creation is up for Debate.

Third Evolution is a scientific theory, not science (I'm assuming by science you mean fact), just as Inteligent design is a theory. Both not proven, however, (and I'm probably a little biased here) I have read more compelling arguments against evolution.

As to your 4th point I agree.

Your fifth point is a little more complicated. I agree science is always changing. I also agree that God's word does not. However, the interpretation of God's word does change over time.

Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Point 6. I believe both THEORIES should be taught in Public schools, because as stated previously, Intelligent Design is a theory. Evidence for the Intelligent does come from the Bible, Torah, and other religious books, but also from mathematics. Also science maybe universal, but scientific fact is not. For every scientist that agrees with evolution, I can find one that agrees with I.D. and for every global warming alarmist I can find one that contradicts them.

I can't disagree with your seventh point, however that piece of evidence by itself does not prove "global warming." It may prove that Colorado is having a warming trend. I'm sure there are similar places that were once warm enough for some animals, that are now to cold.

Number 8, one says destroying, I say using the earth. If I release CO2 I'm helping trees.

As to your 9th point, I believe we are using the earth responsibly. Can we get better? Of course we can, but this doom and gloom global warming is just over the top. At the first Earth day it was stated that around 2012 they average age of a person would be about 42-43 years old because of global warming. Over the last ten years those same alarmists predict NYC would be underwater. Are we causing global warming or is this just the earths natural progression, there are good arguments for both, but no need for the alarmist stuff.

Finally I think you were just tired for point 10.

37 months ago: This is great!

Evolutionist say that they think life on this little speck of dust started around a billion years ago. There are 3 billion combinations of DNA in the human genome. That would equate to a mutation every 4 months for the last billion years to see the results today. Every 4 months on average. When was the last time you saw a mutation?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Billyberoo,
Apparently, based on your comment, "Third Evolution is a scientific theory, not science (I'm assuming by science you mean fact), just as Inteligent design is a theory," you did not major in science. Therefore, your comments on this matter have to be put in that context.

As I have written on this post and a few others, the term "theory" in science vernacular means, "a comprehensive and rigorously proven body of evidence in explanation of principles or attributes of the natural world that haqve withstood the test of time and for which there is presently no evidence known to be in existence on earth to refute it." A "theory" in scientific terms is a fact. It's just not been a fact as long as facts that eventually acquire the term "law". For example, the law of gravity which was first elucidated by Sir Isaac Newton. Einstein elucidated the theory of special relativity in the early 1900s. Darwin and others elucidated the theory of evolution in the late 1800s. If, 200 years or so down the road, there is still no scientific evidence to refute evolutionary or special relativity theory they too will likely earn the right to be called scientific laws such as the Law of Conservation of Energy and the Laws of Entropy and Enthalpy.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: One of the biggest misconceptions of people who will argue on this topic from the "creationists" point of view, is that of creation itself. Technically, the theory of evolution does not explain creation. It can be used to guess how life on earth could have begun and evolved entirely without divine or intelligent intervention of any kind.

Scientists, unlike theologians, cannot use God to explain anything because scientifically, the existence of God cannot be proven. Just like, in reality, we cannot prove we are all living in your mind. So, scientists must draw boundaries within which to prove things. We can only prove what we can scientifically prove. If you and others want to believe that God whipped us up from space dust, science cannot, at this time, prove or disprove that.

However, for the process of evolution on this planet, there is insurmountable evidence. Creatures on this planet have been evolving in our lifetime. When a physician prescribes an antibiotic to a sick patient, and the antibiotic no longer kills the infection, it is because the bacteria have evolved to be resistant. When Orville selectively bread his popcorn plants to produce bigger and bigger and fluffier popcorn, he was serving as the selective force in the evolution of his strains of popcorn plants. Same thing with the breeders who selectively bread seedless grapes and watermelons.

So, I apologize for inserting some technically accurate information into this thread again.
37 months ago: Colo, careful. Computer Science?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Billy,
It is grossly inappropriate to teach Intelligent Design in any school public or private school science class.

First of all, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory or even a hypothesis. It is a musing as to the possible origin of life on earth for which there is absolutely zero scientific evidence.

Second of all, the concept of Intelligent Design was created, pardon the pun, to offer scientific justification for the creation concept for the origin of earth and life on earth from a God-centered perspective. However, it is scientifically unsound. The appropriate place to teach it would be in a World Religions or Theology class. As an instructor of Advanced Placement Biology and certified reader of the national exam, I can assure you that any question on the exam regarding evolution or origin answered with Intelligent Design would earn ZERO credit. Biology is not a philosophy or religion class. It is a science class. (cont)
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: We have a clear separation via our Constitution between church and state, so there is no place for teaching a religious explanation for a scientific process especially in a public school.

Third, again, there is no scientific evidence for Intelligent Design. Tthe seminal text on the topic, Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe, has been refuted by hundreds of scientists as being a fantastic and thorough explanation of some of nature's most complex chemical reactions from blood clotting to the propulsion of cellular life via flagellum rotation; but, when it comes to attempting to offer an alternate theory for evolution, it is as hollow as a rotten tree

So, no, sir, no to teaching Intelligent Design, which is not a theory, to anyone outside of a theology or religion class.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Computer Science? Who?
37 months ago: What? Your science was not created?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Computer Science is not a science degree. There are three science: biology, chemistry, and physics and there subdomains such as microbiology, organic chemistry, or nuclear physics. Computer Science is a math degree at most colleges and universities or sometimes it's own department if the school is big enough. In any case, the scientific definition of a theory is consistent within the sciences.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Raver, there are many different definitions of the word theory, but not one states that it is fact. I don't know where you got yor definition, but it is a half truth. Here is another

theory A hypothesis that has withstood extensive testing by a variety of methods, and in which a higher degree of certainty may be placed. A theory is NEVER a fact, but instead is an attempt to explain one or more facts. (this comes from Estrella Mountain Community College online biology book)
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Billy, I like your point about there being a 'scientist' who refutes evolution for every one who supports as is the same for global warming. It's funny because I've written about this before extensively. When Copernicus had collected what was, in his mind, irrefutable astronomical data that the sun orbited the earth and not the other way around, there were two or three scientists in the world who agreed. When Galileo pushed this further, he was arrested and prevented from publishing. So, the number of scientists that agree or disagree with anything really doesn't mean a hill of beans.

That said, I would be thrilled to see your tally of scientists pro and con on evolution. Even Pope John Paul II decreed that Evolution would be accepted by the Catholic Church as correct and not in contention with Biblical creation. Since he supposedly had a direct line to God, why would you or your 'scientists' have a leg to stand on?

When it comes to the anti-global warming 'scientists' most of the ones I've read are directly or indirectly employed by companies that stand to lose billions of dollars if and when the USA ever switches to 100% renewable energy. I'm sad to say, but just like any profession, scientists can be paid to say what you want them to say in this day and age.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Why do I have a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science then.
Next the constitution.

But I.D. does use math to explain the following as Cypress put:

"There are 3 billion combinations of DNA in the human genome. That would equate to a mutation every 4 months for the last billion years to see the results today. Every 4 months on average. When was the last time you saw a mutation?"

Which is why Evolution is theory not fact, and gravity which was once a theory is noew law not fact.

I can also show you 2 different definitons of theory one from anthropology (theory - several related propositions that explain some domain of inquiry. Also called a school or paradigm), this comes from Oregon State Anthropology.
37 months ago: Colo, I stand corrected. A 'Computer Science' degree is a Mathmatical degree. NUMBERS. You try to make yours work.

I'm open for the formula.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Well Billy,
I'm sorry, I'm going to go with the definition as outlined by the United States National Academy of Sciences rather than an online bio text used at a junior college - no offense to the unmentioned author or to junior colleges in general is intended.

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

source:
National Academy of Sciences (2005), Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a brochure on the book of the same title.

Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Billy,
Bachelors degrees tend to be given in Arts or Sciences (BA) or (BS) depending on the traditions of the schools. I have a BA in Biology and a BA in Chemistry, does that make them arts and not sciences?

I like yours and Cypress's point about mutations. It might surprise you both to know that this mathematical prediction on the number of DNA mutations was a final examination question I gave my students one year. Of course, they remembered from way back, mid-year a discussion we had on this problem and the subsequent discovery of a entire class of enzymes whose sole purpose in life is to find and correct mutations that occur constantly in DNA as it is replicated. So, that's one of the many reasons we don't see as man mutations as mathematics would predict. The DNA fidelity enzymes are called such as it is their job to preserve the original content of the DNA just as a HiFi preserved the fidelity of the original recording.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Sorry, I've got to proof read better before pushing that red button...
"an entire"
"see as many"
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Just a people other than me that would disagree with the Evolution is a fact conclusion.

Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Continued.
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
37 months ago: More Hogwash by your peers. Sorry, I still need the formula. 'A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation' - THEORY! What did you not read? Maybe the word theory. your - theory theory theory. Why push it on the Kid's in your charge. Be open-minded and try to educated instead of indoctrinate.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Billy,
as for there being different definitions of "theory", I totally agree. I used to use this example in my Honors Bio class...

So, Sue is leaning across the fence to talk to Marge, she says, "Marge, I have a theory that Betty is trying to get her son into Princeton." Most people tend to use the word to mean what in science we call a "hypothesis". A hypothesis is an explanation to something you might propose or even theorize. It might or might not be scientifically true. But, in science, we use the word theory to mean something different than other people in other fields or out in the general world use it. To a scientist, a theory is a body of evidence collected over many years, that cannot be disproved at the present time, and has withstood the test of time. Generally, they are around 100 years or so old. After 200 to 300 years, they usually become known as laws, that is if they stand up to that test of time. Scientists are nothing if they aren't careful. They know that techniques change and get better over time. So, they don't want to lend too much credibility to something until they can. When they can, things become known as theories. And ultimately, they become known as laws.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: As I stated early I believe both Theories should be taught in schools, both public and private.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: As for Hogwash, I was always taught that once your evidence in an argument guests insulted rather than disproved or discussed you have won. I don't think that is the case here.

I.D. evidence, I think does more to disprove Evolution, than it does to prove itself, I will give you that.

I am taking the side that both should be taught in schools so as to have a robust debate, for all to learn something. I know I have re-learned some things that I have forgotten since my college days from this discusion. I hope you and anyone else reading and/or partipating did as well.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Sorry, but I'm not going to give up. I have faith in both of you to (a) learn to read what I say and (b) learn to understand that you just might not be right. Lord knows I have learned that.

As I said, there is no scientific evidence to refute that creation never happened. Just as there isn't any way we can scientifically prove that CypressGang didn't dream all this up last night. When we make scientific statements we have to do so within defined parameters, just like when writing a geometry proof you are not allowed to make up you own axioms just because it is convenient. You think it wouldn't be easier just to say, "sure, God just made all this the way it is now in this 'perfect' form?" But we have no proof in that God exists. Where's the proof? Since we have none, we cannot use God as our answer to everything.

Now, I'm going to lash back on anyone who says that I or scientists in general are Godless people. That's a lie. I have a very, very strong faith in God. I do believe that God exists. Maybe not in the Biblical sense. Maybe not a deity that whipped up all this from stardust. But more like a force of goodness in the universe. I believe that God is the force of life. I do not believe that God is a sentient creature who decided one day to make earth. (cont)
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: You have no proof that God made earth and all life on it, I have no proof He did not. Therefore we are at a standstill. This is unacceptable to the scientific community. That community, of which I am a part, had to move on. As we can scientifically explain the origin of life an and all creatures on it via the theory of evolution, we will use it to explain the origin of life. The day that someone produces a shred of evidence to the contrary is the day that the theory will have to be re-evaluated. For example, if God arrived tomorrow on a cloud and said, I made the earth 4,000 years ago based on schematics I designed the week before, nothing evolved, it just seems like it did because I did such a cool job, so there you go, then we'll have our answer.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Until then, we have to go with what we can prove scientifically, not with that which we might or might not want to believe.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Once again, I myself never stated anything biblical here. All I.D. theories are not biblical. But the odds of a group of cells being placed together at random to create for example an eyeball, let alone connecting that eyeball to a brain as complicated as we are, and having that complex brain control the rest of the body. I don't know. Evolution can't prove that to me.
37 months ago: Ahemmmmm. Can they (you) prove evolution? I think not. Our point. Teach, teach and teach. But when you teach your opinion you are not teaching. Your opinion does not matter in a classroom. Your opinion should be to TEACH all aspects and let them make their own conclusions. You paint it anyother way and you might as will move to Venezuela.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Cypress you are sounding like a NY'er
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Billyberoo,
Well, take a college-level bio course, and I'm sure the instructor will be able to 'prove' it to you. There is a viable path which can show you the evolution of all complex organs from the eye to human brain. Interestingly enough, the eye of octopus works similarly to ours but evolved along entirely different principles. If an Intelligent Designer designed the eye, why not make them all exactly the same? Why in fact make some that only see black and white, some that can see with the clarity of a falcon, and some that are 20/100? That's not what an intelligent designer would do, is it?

Evolution doesn't suggest that a random bunch of cells were lying around and suddenly turned into an eye, but that's a nice concept. Hard to imagine, but nice. Fortunately, the theory of evolution applied to explain the origin of life doesn't have to make such huge leaps.
37 months ago: Nope... A TEXAN - 4th generation in this damn heat.

Let's rock.
37 months ago: Billy, learn how to play dumb.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Cypress, I cannot tell if you're arguing for the sake of it or what. I will shell out the bucks to order you College Board approved Intro Biology course, it might be used to save some dough. Then you can read that what I taught was freaking not MY OPINION but what is scientifically accepted fact. Listen, I don't want to rage on you, but you are insulting my intelligence and my integrity and I don't appreciate it.

If I had taught Intelligent Design, I would have been fired. Just like I would have been fired if I taught my students that Golden Moneys from Pluto created life on earth. It was my job to teach my students the curriculum approved by the College Board, not to them yours or my opinion.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Proof of how upset I am, I meant intro biology TEXT, not course, that would be out of my budget when it comes to someone I don't even know.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Well, is to the different Eye argument. A falcon was Intelligently designed with better eyes because it needs them to find food from high in the air.

A bat has no sight but was designed intellgently to have great hearing so as to not fly into a building.

A wheel was intelligently designed because it was easier than dragging a box.

A dog has a great nose, so as to find its food. Dogs could have been designed that way.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Ok Billy. I need to know if you are serious or just playing.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: I think the college board is filled with Elitists that want to spew leftist propaganda.

On the lower (k-12) levels they also teach praise of unions, in order to have students that graduate support there unions.

Why do a lot of Academia believe that the Bush Administration was evil, and trampled American civil rights, yet praise Abe Lincoln, who also trampled civil rights, by suspending Habeous Corpus.

Who says the College board is right?
37 months ago: Colo, you can keep your money. I do have a job. I pay my bills. I pay my taxes. I work for a really large company.
Just learn there is new school and old school. If it was my mistake to communicate to you in old school and not new school. That would be my mistake for thinking your older than you might be. I really did appreciate that you did at least reply. We are working it towards the right direction. Colo - LoveYa Dude. Even if we butt heads.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Just to "play along", why bother to put an eye in the socket if the bat doesn't need it? Any why doesn't a bat need sight? It would sure make it easier when they are searching for fruit (fruit bats) or cows (vampire bats). Oh, I know why, it's so when they turn into people (vampires) they will still have eyes. Wow, the intelligent designer thought of everything.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Why not give human beings the same great sight as a falcon, it wouldn't hurt us to have it? Why make dogs vision only black and white? Wouldn't it make it easier for them to spot the red ball on the grey carpet?
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: I'm not playing around. They maybe simplistic hypotheses but sometimes things are not as complex as we make them out to be.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Simple economics. For arguments sake lets think of the human as a Baseball team under a salary cap. You can't give humans the sight because you used up too much payroll on the brain. You didn' use up payroll on the falcons brain, so you were able to buy sight, also flight, because there brains are far less complex then ours.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: The bat is like the team with a low payroll. You know the eyes are not good, like the guys who are DH's in baseball because they are old and broken down.
37 months ago: Billy, you can play with this one.

Next time call ma a 'Damn Texas Yankee'.

I do have flok up there that migrated years ago.
Have not figured that out yet.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Billy, I am the last person, really, to support the College Board (they are the same people who collect the hundreds of millions of dollars annually on the SAT exams), so please don't get me wrong on love for them.

I would agree the College Board is filled with conservative, GOP-donating, elitists. It is a privately held company with an HQ that looks like the Taj Mahal of HQs. So, it's confusing why they would promote the teaching of evolution. Maybe they don't care, they're just about the profit and leave the tests up to the academics in our country. And, I know you don't want to accept this, but the scientific community in our country and around the world accepts evolutionary theory.

But the most conservative christian on earth, as I wrote before, his grace, Pope John Paul II decreed before his death that the Catholic Church doctrine was not in opposition to Darwinian theory. How interesting? Are we to not believe the Pope? If not the Pope then who?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: This is kind of an aside, but I would like to explore the "elitist" concept that's been Rush Limbaughing away at my soul. Since when is being highly educated elitist? I thought that was part of the American dream and why we were one of the few nations that, from the beginning, provided free education to all of our citizens? Now, I always taught in private schools. You want to talk elitist. How elitist is it to think you're so superior your kids deserve better than the union-controlled public schools. Yeah, these are schools that cost $12,000 year for kindergarten, and by the time your kid graduates you'll have spent over $150,000 on his education. Then comes college. And who puts their kids in there? Rich, rich, rich people. And to what party do so many of our very rich people belong despite being so well-educated and therefore, according to Limbaugh, elitist, Republicans? George W. Bush went to Andover – one of the most elite private schools in our nation, followed by Yale, and then got his MBA from Harvard Business School (both relatively elitist wouldn't you say?). Why doesn't Limbaugh trounce all over Bush for being elitist? Why don't you?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Is it because Rush Limbaugh and his disciples are anti-intellectual snobs who think that by dumbing down America we won't see his real agenda to destroy the economy and then the world?
37 months ago: Mind probe.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: I beleive that we should have a voucher system. When the head of the United Federation of teachers says that once students start to pay union dues I will worry about them, I start to have a problenm with public schools. They are nothing but indoctrination camps for Unions and other leftist propaganda.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Nice discussion, thanks. But off to work for me.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Billy, so you're saying, and I don't think your hypotheses are simplistic they are great, that when this great intelligent designer, all powerful and all knowing, set about creating the life on the earth, He (or She) was operating on a salary cap with limited parts and so on? I guess it's not impossible. It doesn't seem that logical to me. To me, it seems more logical that there were members of the original bat species that evolved from an original rodent-like creature. And among these there were some with excellent sight and some with lesser across the spectrum. Given their habitat, caves, and night hunting for insects, there was no survival advantage for the ones that could see well. So there was nothing to select for the increased frequency of those good sight genes in the population. In fact, the ones whose physiology spent less energy on operating eyes and more on vocal sonic ability, would have a survival advantage and pass on their genes with greater frequency. Eventually, over time, the frequency of sighted-bats would fall to zero in the population. Which is how the sightlessness of bats would be explained by evolutionary theory. It explains why they still have eyes, because removing DNA that creates organs is much more complex than simply deactivating the function, but that they cannot see.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Well, Billy, I'll be glad to hear your responses to these when you get off work. Have a great day.

As for your comments about the Teachers union, I couldn't agree with your more. I have a huge problem with unions in general. I thought that was a Colorado thing. We are very anti-union here. In fact, Coors kept getting in trouble because they did everything they could to try and keep the unions out.

I personally believe that dismantling teachers unions would be one of the best things to happen to American Education in 100 years. This is why I always worked in private schools. No unions, no district mandates, the ability to actually teach.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
37 months ago: Ok Cypress, I appreciate your comments. I'm not sure what you mean by new and old school.

But, we'll continue to debate. On the basal level, I don't disagree with you on many points. It's important, however, for science teachers to teach science and math teachers to teach math and religion teachers to teach religion. ID and creationism are not science. Until they are, they should be kept out of the science classroom, just like we don't teach French.
37 months ago: 'nuff said. Maybe we can work on it.
As far as 'old school vs: new school'
I'll let you figure that on out. Your a smart guy and I'm sure it will bug the crap out of you. My joke.

8's
37 months ago: Siempre Solo:
Whoa!
You said "I.D. is all about faith without religion period."
I'm (striving to be) a Christian. I'm also counting on some Grace too. I am Conservative (government sucks, etc.), and I understand G-d set all this up for us. He turned a few screws loose on each one of us, and he's sitting back watching who reacts correctly. I believe G-d is that "Intelligent Designer", ie. he left clues for us to use our brains (including evolution).
Did I miss something?
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Siempre, you show a lack of inteligence, understanding, and tollerance by not spelling out the word God. You know in my senior year of College back in 1994, I got so sick of my schools newspaper spelling woman, with a "y" (womyn), I'm sure you can figure out why they did that, that I started a campaign to fix that and won on all three grounds.

And once again I was not making any reference to the Bible, none whatsoever. ID. does not have to do with god. And notice I am not capitalizing the "g"
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: Well if I choose, like our current President's administration does, calculate that 2+2=5, that makes me an idiot. 2+2=4, god is spelled GOD. I did not question your intelligence, I stated what is a fact. That the word god, is at a second grade reading level, along with dog and cat. If you can't spell it correctly on a consistent basis I just have to say you lack intelligence, or you have the intelligence of a first grader.
37 months ago: I have already had this argument.
Actually I like to use caps. (just to start the fire)

GOD

Do me a favor solo. Check all of your posts that had

G-d

that are in the google news listings.

They now say Gd.

See, Google doesn't even accept it.

What exactly does Gd mean?

Go figure.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
37 months ago: You are wrong. A theory is a theory. Darwinsm and Evolution both have just as much evidence to disprove them as do to prove them. Both should be taught in schools. Teaching only one is indoctrination, sort of like training a d-g.

Also, Colorranter thinks the College Board is the final authority. They spell god correctly.
37 months ago: Siempre Solo:
Enjoy the back and forth.
Whose to say G-d did not set things up to appear as if some intelligence designed everything?
I am unaware of anyone that understands G-d's plans.
Are you?
By the way, I, unlike Cypress Tree, respect your reverence to G-d.
37 months ago: Dammit, i was afraid this was gonna happen. I mention creationism and darwinism, saying that i don' want to start some religion vs. science war, and then a creationism vs. evolution war starts up.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.