Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Aceventura · Feb 1, 2013

Seaver said: ↑

Really? Do I really have to get into plate tectonics? Every area where plates are being forced up and apart (Atlantic Ridge) they are being pushed towards each other and in (Marianas Trench). Honestly, boil some water and you'll magically see how convection works on the surface. Either you're a really really talented troll, or I'm flabbergasted we have a Bill O'Reilly situation where he claims science can't explain the tides.
Click to expand...

First, do we agree that we are discussing theory. And that the theory in question has evolved over time and there is still much to learn?

Second, regarding expansion:

New oceanic crust is created at divergent boundaries that are sites of sea-floor spreading. Because Earth remains roughly the same size, there must be a concurrent destruction or uplifting of crust so that the net area of crust remains the same. Accordingly, as crust is created at divergent boundaries, oceanic crust must be destroyed in areas of subduction underneath the lighter continental crust. The net area is also preserved by continental crust uplift that occurs when less dense continental crust collides with continental crust. Because both continental crusts resist subduction, the momentum of collision causes an uplift of crust, forming mountain chains. A vivid example of this type of collision is found in the ongoing collision of India with Asia that has resulted in the Himalayan mountains that continue to increase in height each year. This dynamic theory of plate tectonics also explained the formation of island arcs formed by rising material at sites where oceanic crust subducts under oceanic crust, the formation of mountain chains where oceanic crust subducts under continental crust (e.g., Andes mountains), and volcanic arcs in the Pacific. The evidence for deep hot convection currents combined with plate movement (and concurrent continental drift) also explained the mid-plate "hot spot" formation of volcanic island chains (e.g., Hawaiian islands) and the formation of rift valleys (e.g., Rift Valley of Africa). Mid-plate earthquakes, such as the powerful New Madrid earthquake in the United States in 1811, are explained by interplate pressures that bend plates much like a piece of sheet metal pressed from opposite sides.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-1/Historic-Dispute-Are-Earth-s-continents-stationary-throughout-geologic-time.html#ixzz2JhQqmqUu

Baraka_Guru · Feb 1, 2013

Aceventura said: ↑

It is the curiosity to understand life's meaning, purpose, that is the foundation of science. Science can not be separated from its foundation in theology.
Click to expand...

This is only the case when considering the history of science. In terms of the current trajectories of science, it is important to keep theology separate lest it spoil its integrity. Theology once was a driving factor behind science. It then became a hinderance. Consider the case of Galileo Gelilei.

P.s. Please clarify - is it your view that it is a fact or theory that the earths continents were at one time connected to form one big continent?
Click to expand...

In scientific terms, facts are what can be observed. Since the earth's continents are no longer a single land mass, and we have no direct evidence of this, it cannot be considered a single fact. It is considered a theory because of the body of facts (i.e., evidence) pointing to it.

It's the same thing with the Big Bang theory.

Things like these are considered true once there is overwhelming evidence. Well, it's more like a high level of certainty than "truth." There are a lot of existing theories in biology and chemistry, for example, that have helped make modern medicine what it is today.

Alistair · Feb 1, 2013

It's actually observable as well. There is a deep trench around the Gulf of Aden, for example, that is slowly moving Asia and Africa apart, and measurably so.

None of this is controversial. It's not even complex geology - more like basic geography.

Edit: Ace, do you know what a Scientific Theory is? Hint: It's not "just a theory".

Aceventura · Feb 1, 2013

Alistair said: ↑

It's actually observable as well. There is a deep trench around the Gulf of Aden, for example, that is slowly moving Asia and Africa apart, and measurably so.

None of this is controversial. It's not even complex geology - more like basic geography.

Edit: Ace, do you know what a Scientific Theory is? Hint: It's not "just a theory".
Click to expand...

Science says that the earth's net size is not changing and has not changed. If plates are moving, some move away from each other while others move closer. In areas where the sea floor is expanding there is contraction somewhere else. I am not arguing there is no movement. We know there is movement I stated that many posts ago. What we don;t know is what the earth looked like billions of years ago. And sure it may have formed one massive connected continent at one time and perhaps at another time the continents sorta looked the way they do now. So, tell me what is and what is not controversial? I say we are still gaining knowledge - is that controversial? what we know 100 years from today may lead us to different conclusions that today, is that controversial?

Baraka_Guru · Feb 1, 2013

Alistair said: ↑

Edit: Ace, do you know what a Scientific Theory is? Hint: It's not "just a theory".
Click to expand...

I mentioned it above, but I'm not sure if he picked up on it. I'm not sure he fully understands that scientific theories are dependent on a body of facts. Otherwise it's a hypothesis, which is a proposed explanation of something to be tested. Creationism can't even be a scientific hypothesis because it would require it to be testable.

grumpyolddude · Feb 1, 2013

Aceventura, the body of your posts of late seem to reveal a lack of, or blatant disregard of the Scientific Method:
Introduction to the Scientific Method

An excerpt:

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.
An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")
The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."
Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.
Click to expand...

The theory of Pangaea is supported by geological evidence that North American and Europe were once connected, as were South America and Africa (and other connected land masses). Of course, one must first accept the possibility that the Earth is more than 6,000 to 8,000 years old, as is hypothesized in Creationism (not a theory as defined above).

Also, regarding your contention that science seeks to find life's meaning and purpose: um... no. Philosophy (and religion) seeks meanings and purposes. Science asks the who, what, where, when and how questions.

Baraka_Guru · Feb 1, 2013

grumpyolddude said: ↑

The theory of Pangaea is supported by geological evidence that North American and Europe were once connected, as were South America and Africa (and other connected land masses). Of course, one must first accept the possibility that the Earth is more than 6,000 to 8,000 years old, as is hypothesized in Creationism (not a theory as defined above).
Click to expand...

I'd like to point out again that creationism even fails as a hypothesis, as it lacks indications of cause and effect and does not operate on the premise of being testable.

Creationism is no more than a religious belief, a matter of faith. The idea that it should be offered as an alternative view to evolutionary theory is not a practice of science; it is a practice of religious propaganda. It is an attempt to appropriate scientific knowledge as a means to justify the purported truth of the Bible. However, its failure to reconcile scientific knowledge with the supernatural and the mythological is so spectacular that to take it seriously is to risk ridicule.

Religious fundamentalists need to leave science alone. If not, I may be forced to begin a movement to pass legislation requiring all Christian religious studies to offer an alternative view of religion by also studying the pantheology of the prehistoric Hyborian Age.

Seaver · Feb 1, 2013

What you're effectively arguing is the Stork Theory should be given equal weight to Sexual Reproduction.

There are areas in Papa New Guinea where tribes have not linked sex with becoming pregnant. Their belief is that after a proper meal spirits from the forest enter the body of a woman and then takes physical form. Sex to them is little more than really fun masturbation. Their theory should be given equal weight in teaching sexual reproduction in our schools?

You, yourself, can't tell me every little secret in how a single cell becomes a conscious human being therefore it's just a "theory" and can't be given any more weight than a Stork flies at night and delivers a baby boy, or forest spirits entering the body and becoming physical.

Joniemack · Feb 1, 2013

Aceventura said: ↑

I can have fun with theories because I know a theory when I see one. From my point of view it seems you are taking some current theories as scientific fact - throughout history this has been common - and then new information proved many of those theories people believed as fact, wrong. You can mock people of biblical faith, but realize that some of the theories you take as fact require faith too. Either way, perhaps you can just get really really really angry and solve all the problems -

P.s. Please clarify - is it your view that it is a fact or theory that the earths continents were at one time connected to form one big continent?
Click to expand...

Why don't you check it out for yourself, Ace. There are tons of gifs and videos and geographical explanations all over the web. Easy to find. Google: Pangaea. Google: Plate tectonics.

Personally, I don't think anyone here should waste their time providing you with explanations, data or links if you have no intention of being open minded - your close mindedness being evident in your refusal to look upon a "scientific theory" as no more than a rough guesstimate. As if it's no different than a religious theory,requiring faith in the absence of any evidence.

Baraka_Guru · Feb 1, 2013

The natural mode of Christians is appropriation. They have a storied history of doing this. They continue to attempt it but are failing miserably in the scientific age, which would explain their existential crisis to which they respond with charges of persecution.

It's ironic really.

rogue49 · Feb 2, 2013

Here's the GOP's real problem...they've become the "villian"...or even more so, the ones people keep talking about...and not in a good way.

I don't really see articles about the Dems...if anything, some blah topic on how they're trying to do something, but nothing burning.
But I see article after article...and I hear the water cooler talk...the GOP's name keeps popping up...in a negative context.

The buzzword for awhile was Obama, which could go either way...but not the Dems, perhaps Congress.
But way more in volume is the GOP has done this and the GOP has done that.

They need to get the negative eye off them...and off them quick.
Because people swat flies...

The GOP’s bad fixes to the electoral college
By Washington Post Editorial Board, Published: February 1

REPUBLICANS AREN’T alone in manipulating election rules or drawing districts to favor their candidates, but lately they’ve been in the vanguard. Their latest proposals, to fiddle with presidential vote-tallying, are particularly egregious. Following through on them not only would damage the GOP’s reputation but also could drain all legitimacy from the electoral college system. Virginia Republicans, thankfully, killed such a reform plan Tuesday. Republicans elsewhere should stay away, too.

State-level GOP leaders around the country have been considering ways to split up their states’ electoral college votes, and one idea is to do it according to congressional district maps. A presidential candidate who wins a congressional district, say, would win one electoral college vote.

Advocates claim their proposals would make the process more democratic. The electoral college results from a 51-to-49 state would reflect in some way the preference of the 49 percent, instead of awarding all the state’s electoral college votes to the candidate who squeaked out a narrow statewide victory.

In reality, though, these proposals would replace fixed electoral boundaries based on history — state borders — with constantly shifting ones based on different geographical factors and partisan calculation — gerrymandered congressional district lines. If applied to the last election, President Obama would have taken only four of Virginia’s 13 electoral votes, instead of all of them. True, the candidates would have campaigned differently, too. But this system applied nationally would give Republicans a built-in advantage because it would dilute the influence of highly concentrated urban voters, who tend to vote Democratic in large numbers. These effects are uncertain, though, because partisan redistricting in the future would certainly change the electoral map.

What’s more alarming is the unequal effect of only some states moving to a district-based or similar system. Republicans might switch the system in Democratic-leaning swing states but keep the winner-take-all standard in reliably red states — a result conceivable because of widespread GOP control of state legislatures and governorships. It is not accidental that these proposals have traction among Republican politicians in states Mr. Obama won in the last two elections.

At the least, an already complex electoral system would get more so. Election results would probably become less reflective of national sentiment. And, as RealClearPolitics’s Sean Trende points out, the country would be in store for recount after recount, since victory margins in close congressional districts would hinge on even fewer votes because of the smaller vote totals.

All of that would destabilize the already imperfect electoral college.
Click to expand...

redux · Feb 2, 2013

Aceventura said: ↑

I am not a fundamentalist Christian but I can tell you why I fear (not terrified or repulsed, because I am not) fundamentalist Muslims - first and foremost because their most vocal leaders say they want me dead, they say I am evil, they are intolerant of my freedom. If they did not say those things and if some did not act out on those things the fear would go away. It is not complicated.
Click to expand...

The threat from white supremacists/anti-government militia groups or other right wing extremists groups in the US pose a threat just as great as Muslim groups half way around the world with little or no capacity to attack the US.

And, on a personal level, a Muslim (or someone looking/dressing like a Muslim) or even Jews are far more likely to be victimized by some white bigot than you being victimized by a Muslim....as a result, in part, of intolerance that begins in educational systems as personified by Texas and their "Bible only" policy and further compounded by the belief among many on the right (30+% of Republicans) that Obama is Muslim and/or acts like Michelle Bachmann's witch hunt for Muslims in the government.

If Texas wants to teach religions in public schools, the kids would be much better served by teaching all religions and tolerance for those of different faiths or beliefs.

Charlatan · Feb 2, 2013

Please, don't feed the trolls.

Aceventura · Feb 11, 2013

grumpyolddude said: ↑

Aceventura, the body of your posts of late seem to reveal a lack of, or blatant disregard of the Scientific Method:
Introduction to the Scientific Method

An excerpt:

The theory of Pangaea is supported by geological evidence that North American and Europe were once connected, as were South America and Africa (and other connected land masses). Of course, one must first accept the possibility that the Earth is more than 6,000 to 8,000 years old, as is hypothesized in Creationism (not a theory as defined above).

Also, regarding your contention that science seeks to find life's meaning and purpose: um... no. Philosophy (and religion) seeks meanings and purposes. Science asks the who, what, where, when and how questions.
Click to expand...

I have not disputed the theory of Pangaea. I simply say that as a body of knowledge, we gain increased understanding and that what we believe and why we believe it today may be different tomorrow. If that is in dispute, let's talk about it. Otherwise you folks should actually read what I write.
--- merged: Feb 4, 2013 8:30 PM ---

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

I'd like to point out again that creationism even fails as a hypothesis, as it lacks indications of cause and effect and does not operate on the premise of being testable.
Click to expand...

In what context? Relative to what? Creationism can not be tested, this is true. But no theory regarding the cause of the universe or life can be tested. Since you are an expert on the scientific method - isn't testing a requirement? So what the hell are you talking about? I know I am talking about theories. I know that creationism requires faith. I stated that multiple times. But, do you know that any theory you believe regarding the cause of the universe also requires faith!
--- merged: Feb 4, 2013 8:36 PM ---

Seaver said: ↑

What you're effectively arguing is the Stork Theory should be given equal weight to Sexual Reproduction.
Click to expand...

No. there is no Stork theory - this is simply folklore for children. At one point in human history, humans did not have the factual knowledge base to fully understand reproduction. Overtime a factual basis evolved - so in reproduction what we know is not theory. However, there is still information unknown to us, i.e. when does human life begin for a fetus - when does a fetus gain consciousness - when does a fetus feel pain. When we gain more knowledge on this subjuect are you going to have the courage to possibly modify your views on abortion?

You folks try so hard to be condescending - get better at it.
--- merged: Feb 4, 2013 8:39 PM ---

Joniemack said: ↑

Personally, I don't think anyone here should waste their time providing you with explanations, data or links if you have no intention of being open minded - your close mindedness being evident in your refusal to look upon a "scientific theory" as no more than a rough guesstimate. As if it's no different than a religious theory,requiring faith in the absence of any evidence.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if people actually understood what is actually being discussed. The earth's geology is not even in question here, what is in question is the honesty and understanding of the application of theory, facts, opinions and faith.
--- merged: Feb 4, 2013 8:43 PM ---

redux said: ↑

The threat from white supremacists/anti-government militia groups or other right wing extremists groups in the US pose a threat just as great as Muslim groups half way around the world with little or no capacity to attack the US.
Click to expand...

Strawman argument. Commenting on my fear of A has nothing to do with B one way or the other. You are given a direct answer to an issue and the solution is simple.
--- merged: Feb 4, 2013 8:46 PM ---

Charlatan said: ↑

Please, don't feed the trolls.
Click to expand...

I have been posting on this forum for multiple years now - if I am a troll block me from posting, report me, ignore me - do what you have the power to do. but do something other than simply suggesting I am a troll.

Baraka_Guru · Feb 4, 2013

Aceventura said: ↑

In what context? Relative to what?
Click to expand...

In the context of science. Relative to evolutionary theory.

Creationism can not be tested, this is true. But no theory regarding the cause of the universe or life can be tested.
Click to expand...

Science will test whatever it can. Many aspects of evolutionary theory have been rigorously tested. It is not a theory that has proven the cause of the universe or life. It is a theory about the change of inherent characteristics of organisms over time. In this includes an estimate about when life began. In this includes a consensus on the hypothesis regarding how life began. This is all based on knowledge arrived at from successfully testing hypotheses multiple times, but there is no definitive answer to your concerns. The picture is incomplete because evolution is a complex phenomenon that has occurred over a great amount of time. (Deep time is a concept of utter sublimity to most.) This is a simplification, but that's what it is.

That said, it doesn't take much to realize why "Genesis" shouldn't be taught alongside abiogenesis. The problem is that must assume the former to be true to be taken seriously while others view the latter through the lens of mulitple hypotheses tested and to be tested. One is governed by faith—in short, a belief in the supernatural. The other is governed by honesty, responsibility, and accountability—in short, a practice bound in reality.

Regardless, I assume you agree because you know that creationism can't be tested.

Since you are an expert on the scientific method - isn't testing a requirement?
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be an expert, but as far as I know, testing is a requirement, yes.

So what the hell are you talking about? I know I am talking about theories. I know that creationism requires faith. I stated that multiple times. But, do you know that any theory you believe regarding the cause of the universe also requires faith!
Click to expand...

You should now know what I'm talking about. If you understand the basic concepts and realities of both creationism and evolution, then you should realize that one is a matter of faith, while the other is matter of knowledge. To say that evolutionary theory requires faith misses the mark. A hypothesis isn't an article of faith so much as an article of speculation rooted in relatable knowledge. (Again, this is the difference between cause and effect vs. a lack of it.)

Now, I'd like to see your argument in support of teaching faith as an alternative view to knowledge. Do you have one?

Aceventura · Feb 4, 2013

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

In the context of science. Relative to evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...

Evolution does not explain nor attempt to explain the origins of the universe. creationism does. creationism does overlap into some of the same areas of evolution - but not totally. theories regarding the origin of the universe in my opinion are still more exercises in creative thought than science. I am a person and there are others who believe life on earth has evolved and that it is the nature of life to adapt and compete, yet based on faith and no other realistic response I believe in God as the creator - and I believe his existence whatever that is to mean is beyond my comprehension.

That said, it doesn't take much to realize why "Genesis" shouldn't be taught alongside abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

If based on the assumption that Genesis is given a literal interpretation, I would agree with you. I do not apply a literal interpretation to Genesis - I think the snake/garden of eden/adam/eve are metaphors. Adam could have been a single celled animal for all I know and the metaphor could be applicable - you know like Eve could have originated when the single cell called Adam split. either way I don't accept the concept that life was an accident of nature. If you do, that is fine - but don't try to suggest your view on this is science.

Baraka_Guru · Feb 4, 2013

Aceventura said: ↑

Evolution does not explain nor attempt to explain the origins of the universe. creationism does. creationism does overlap into some of the same areas of evolution - but not totally. theories regarding the origin of the universe in my opinion are still more exercises in creative thought than science. I am a person and there are others who believe life on earth has evolved and that it is the nature of life to adapt and compete, yet based on faith and no other realistic response I believe in God as the creator - and I believe his existence whatever that is to mean is beyond my comprehension.
Click to expand...

I'm not really that inclined to describe the value of studying evolution to you other than perhaps to help elucidate how or why the GOP and many conservatives have a problem in understanding its value and its role in education.

There are hypotheses and theories, based in science, that try to describe the origins of the universe. The answer to this question, of course, continues to be elusive, but that's the nature of scientific research and discovery. So while the main emphasis of evolution is on the biological patterns over time, there is a part of the theory that does consider the origins of life. (The title of Darwin's seminal work, after all, is On the Origin of Species.) So in a way, both evolutionary theory and creationism try to explain the origins of the universe. The concern for evolutionary scientists resides in life itself, though physicists and other scientists will go beyond that to matter and anti-matter itself.

Anyway, there are many like you who tend to fill in the blanks with something like a concept of God. Science doesn't do that. It fills in blanks with knowledge. The placeholders they use in the meantime remain hypotheses. These are open to testing and other challenges; God is not. He's supposed to be jealous or something, so they say.

A lot of this is really beside the point. The point of studying evolution isn't to explain the creation of the universe. There is a lot more to it than that. There are a number of scientific disciplines related to evolutionary theory.

If based on the assumption that Genesis is given a literal interpretation, I would agree with you. I do not apply a literal interpretation to Genesis - I think the snake/garden of eden/adam/eve are metaphors. Adam could have been a single celled animal for all I know and the metaphor could be applicable - you know like Eve could have originated when the single cell called Adam split. either way I don't accept the concept that life was an accident of nature. If you do, that is fine - but don't try to suggest your view on this is science.
Click to expand...

"Accident of nature" is misleading. To me it sounds like the assumption that there is no reason for something to have occurred. Nature is simply the net result of cause and effect. An understanding of this is the foundation of scientific inquiry. The cause and effect in creationism is illogical because it is dependent on supernatural forces. "It's a miracle" is even more useless than "accident of nature."

You haven't told me where you're going with this. I still cannot see the value of teaching the supernatural alongside the natural. Would you also suggest faith healing as a treatment in the OR?

redux · Feb 4, 2013

Bill Nye, The Science Guy:

"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can - we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.

Former Congressman Todd Akin in response -- Nye Caused Hurricane by Denying Teaching the word of God to children:

"Look around us. We have gays in the military. Lesbians on the Supreme Court. Promiscuity in Hollywood and in music and on the streets. And now we have this guy ...what's his name...Bill Nye...we have this guy Bill Nye going around saying we can't teach the word of God to our children!" "Is it any wonder we got an ungodly storm off our shores? How dumb do you have to be to think that's just a coincidence?"

"Frankly I think it might do some good if Bill Nye got on his knees and asked for forgiveness. The storm isn't over yet. Maybe the good lord will let up if he gets a little contrition from him."

Nye responds:

Look, these people they're fucking retarded. Rape can't cause pregnancy? Breastmilk cures homosexuality? I caused a hurricane by challenging creationism? Who can possibly take these people seriously anymore?"

"He's a fucking idiot. Just a plain fucking idiot. I'm sorry - I don't say that word very often - but it happens to fit in this case. He's just a fucking idiot."

Ace....you are bordering on Akin-speak and you want to be taken seriously?

Aceventura · Feb 11, 2013

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

I'm not really that inclined to describe the value of studying evolution to you other than perhaps to help elucidate how or why the GOP and many conservatives have a problem in understanding its value and its role in education.
Click to expand...

GOP'ers, Conservatives generally do not have a problem understanding the value and the role of evolution in education - I used an example of the very people you say have a problem with natural selection and how they use it in agriculture - yes bible-belt people study, understand and apply this science. In addition it is the conservatives who understand the concept of the strongest surviving. You talk about these concepts in theory but seem to be very uncomfortable with the real world application. Do you really believe in evolution? Do you go out of your way to try to save species that are destine to be eliminated because of an inability to adapt to a changing environment? Is it you who believes that the environment needs to be frozen in some particular state of being so that your favorite animals are in some form of static condition? I say compete or die, what do you say?

There are hypotheses and theories, based in science, that try to describe the origins of the universe. The answer to this question, of course, continues to be elusive, but that's the nature of scientific research and discovery. So while the main emphasis of evolution is on the biological patterns over time, there is a part of the theory that does consider the origins of life. (The title of Darwin's seminal work, after all, is On the Origin of Species.) So in a way, both evolutionary theory and creationism try to explain the origins of the universe. The concern for evolutionary scientists resides in life itself, though physicists and other scientists will go beyond that to matter and anti-matter itself.
Click to expand...

The origin of life is different than the origin of the universe.

Anyway, there are many like you who tend to fill in the blanks with something like a concept of God. Science doesn't do that. It fills in blanks with knowledge. The placeholders they use in the meantime remain hypotheses. These are open to testing and other challenges; God is not. He's supposed to be jealous or something, so they say.
Click to expand...

If science doesn't fill in blank what is the point of theory? isn't that an attempt to fill in the blanks? Isn't it the drive to fill in the blanks that lead to theory what is actually what leads to the science that can confirm theory with knowns? Again, I fail to see how you separate the theology that has always been the primary driver of science.

"Accident of nature" is misleading. To me it sounds like the assumption that there is no reason for something to have occurred. Nature is simply the net result of cause and effect. An understanding of this is the foundation of scientific inquiry. The cause and effect in creationism is illogical because it is dependent on supernatural forces. "It's a miracle" is even more useless than "accident of nature."
Click to expand...

Let's just leave at, there are gaps. and perhaps you are the only one who does not try to fill those gaps before there are knowns to fill them. My primary question on this subject is currently on the environmental purpose of self-awareness. There are commonly known 5 states of self-awareness - what evolutionary purpose is being solved?

You haven't told me where you're going with this. I still cannot see the value of teaching the supernatural alongside the natural. Would you also suggest faith healing as a treatment in the OR?
Click to expand...

Why, do you throw this stuff out there and expect me not to respond. Are you really of the belief that state of mind does not have an impact on the state of being? It has been proven that there is a placebo affect. Faith, positive thought, will, all have a role. I am sure to you this means - Ace won't take medical treatment because he believes in the power of positive thought - and this would be a presumptuous B.S. straw-man argument. I have seen the difference when a person has the will to live compared to a person who has lost the will to live. So, I would treat the whole person - including the "faith" component.
--- merged: Feb 4, 2013 at 7:45 PM ---

redux said: ↑

Ace....you are bordering on Akin-speak and you want to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...

If you can read, what I write is clear.

redux · Feb 4, 2013

Aceventura said: ↑

GOP'ers, Conservatives generally do not have a problem understanding the value and the role of evolution in education...

...
Click to expand...

Really, Ace?

Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA), currently serving on the House Science & Technology Committee:

"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

He is just one example of the 20+ percent of Republicans who are self-identified religious fundamentalists and believe the Bible should be a public policy document.

Log in or Sign up

Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Alistair Eurotrash

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

grumpyolddude Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Seaver Vertical

Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Log in or Sign up

Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Alistair Eurotrash

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

grumpyolddude Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Seaver Vertical

Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted

Useful Searches