Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 153

Thread: It is impossible to believe in Evolution and not be a racist

  1. #46
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by freemehul View Post
    as to nefarious
    iniquitous often derives from insanity, frequently cluster B, particularly anti-social tendencies. And those tendencies are very destructive and so not building prestige and wealth. In fact quite the opposite. Said governments tend to have short lifespans.
    Yes but can(and quite often are) be tremendously profitable for those in charge i they have the cunning to get out before the **** hit's the fan, and while they're in power their power is usually fairly absolute.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  2. #47
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,496
    Quote Originally Posted by noobium View Post
    it's amazing how much racist horse**** the general public believes in, that is tacitly approved by the media (despite the cries that the media is politically correct). it seems to be on the upswing lately, thanks to a general public that has surrendered its own power of critical thinking (speaking of people my age and younger, anyway).
    Their attention gets subverted. Instead of worrying about community, their worry about the latest trends in clothing/gadgets, some sensational, but completely pointless, news story, the latest fear trend (ie, terrorism) and increasingly now, they also worry getting a job.

    Under such circumstances, the general populace can easily be swayed and manipulated by the political and economical elite who often work hand-in-hand to screw over the general population.

    Other posters talked about China not being a viable system, but I think the West, with our aimless economic facism isn't exactly better. The idea of actual democracy in our current society is something we tell ourselves to feel good.

    Quote Originally Posted by noobium View Post
    somewhere, the concept of political equality was lost - or actually, deliberately misrepresented, because the people today are essentially believers in fascism, through and through with no possibility of anything else.
    Yes, both political facism and perhaps more importantly, economical facism.
    Last edited by Magn; 19-11-2014 at 17:41.

  3. #48
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Magn View Post
    Yes, both political facism and perhaps more importantly, economical facism.
    It's more like Economical Anarchy than economical fascism. The Free Market proponents and the Tea Party Republitards wants a Might makes Right economy and by extension a Might makes Right political system(since they're dead set on allowing the Market to legally bribe politicians) which makes it more of a form of Plutocracy rather than any form of democracy(which a republic is a subset of).
    Wealth or support of the wealthy is completely necessary to becoming a President/Senator/Congressman, so the wealthy conduct the real election by voting with their wallets and the people then gets to choose between essentially nearly identical clones doing their best to claim mthey're different than the other guy, while in reality they're both deep in the pockets of the same person.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  4. #49
    Post Fiend itchm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Terra Nullius
    Posts
    161
    First let me address the title. Specifically the word "believe". It is not a question of belief. There is evolution. It's a thing. Saying "I don't believe in evolution" is tantamount to saying "I don't believe in shirts".

    Quote Originally Posted by tiggis View Post
    ...
    The idea that every animal on the planet is adapting and evolving to survive except humans is incredible.

    Unless the species is perfect ...
    Your perspective is off. Humans have been evolving for millenia, just as animals have. What's confusing you is that with the advent of homo sapiens, humans have become architects of evolution.

    Whether or not it's perfection is another debate entirely, but there is a reason our evolution appears to have stopped. Higher functioning intelligence. Things that you likely encounter every day are sabotaging the system of survival of the fittest; seatbelts, crosswalks, fences, laws, vaccines, just to name a few.

    We have all but removed ourselves from the evolutionary cycle. We also have completely disturbed the equilibrium of quintessential Darwinist evolution, with things such as deforestation, over hunting and unnecessary animal conservation. Also pollution. In fact, it's likely the next big evolutionary step for our species is extinction.

    Racism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Racism comes from ignorance, plain as can be.
    Last edited by itchm; 01-12-2014 at 16:02.
    Disclaimer
    Take everything I post with a grain a salt. It tastes better that way.

  5. #50
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by itchm View Post
    First let me address the title. Specifically the word "believe". It is not a question of belief. There is evolution. It's a thing. Saying "I don't believe in evolution" is tantamount to saying "I don't believe in shirts".



    Your perspective is off. Humans have been evolving for millenia, just as animals have. What's confusing you is that with the advent of homo sapiens, humans have become architects of evolution.

    Whether or not it's perfection is another debate entirely, but there is a reason our evolution appears to have stopped. Higher functioning intelligence. Things that you likely encounter every day are sabotaging the system of survival of the fittest; seatbelts, crosswalks, fences, laws, vaccines, just to name a few.

    We have all but removed ourselves from the evolutionary cycle. We also have completely disturbed the equilibrium of quintessential Darwinist evolution, with things such as deforestation, over hunting and unnecessary animal conservation. Also pollution. In fact, it's likely the next big evolutionary step for our species is extinction.

    Racism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Racism comes from ignorance, plain as can be.
    We have not stopped evolution, because evolution cannot be stopped. Evolution is simply change and change is inevitable.
    We have to some extent superseded natural selection yes, but evolution is more than just that. And no, crosswalks, fences or seatbelts etc. doesn't stop evolution any more than the invention of fire for heat and cooking, or the wearing of furs in cold climates did.

    Hell with enough research we might be able to learn to control evolution on a genetic level, and yes we've evolved to such a point that we as a species is capable of self extinction, any other form of extinction at this point is unlikely, barring the rise of some super virus/bacteria(which is far from impossible).
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  6. #51
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,496
    Quote Originally Posted by barbrolie View Post
    There is selection, though at a much slower rate than would have happened had we not had the technological capabilities for living with undesirable genes. And it's possible we're selecting for characteristics that do not necessarily augur well for the survival of the species.
    I think people get stuck in a local short-term evaluation of evolution and lose sight of the bigger picture (ie, millions of years from now after the rise and fall of countless cultures). There is a desirable selection happening, it's happening at an incredibly slow pace (think an ossilating graph going in an overall upward direction over millions of years) and more at our expense than it needs to because we chose not to exert intelligent control over it.

    If positive selection is not happening locally in a culture, that culture will die and only cultures that evolve in a positive direction will survive.

    We have never been so prosperous that we could afford to screw up a lot. Our technological progress has limits and often comes at an environmental cost. We can't afford to apply it mindlessly without careful analysis (the way we have been doing quite often so far).

    We could help guide our natural selection: we wouldn't even have to kill anyone or be extremely stringent about it, we'd just have to make sure that say, the bottom x% using broad metrics the majority would agree on doesn't reproduce (ie, extremely poorly adapted individuals in terms of physical health, character or cognitive abilities).

    Instead, because we refuse to do any sort of weeding, however humane it would be, we've chosen to let external factors do all that weeding for us and it will be a much harsher taskmaster than we would be. It won't have any qualms about making countless people die in a very non-humane way and wiping out entire societies to ultimately get it right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    Hell with enough research we might be able to learn to control evolution on a genetic level, and yes we've evolved to such a point that we as a species is capable of self extinction, any other form of extinction at this point is unlikely, barring the rise of some super virus/bacteria(which is far from impossible).
    I'm not saying extinction of the entire species would be impossible, but I think it accidentally occuring as a result of our actions would be extremely improbable. If we'd wipe out our entire species, it would be quite deliberate, not accidental.

    However, we are entirely capable of "accidentally" (most likely by turning a blind eye to facts we have) making our civilisation crumbles, screwing up our ecosystems in such a way that prosperity is not feasible for a very long time and force smaller pockets of populations to subsist on very little for the foreseeable future.

    I wouldn't diss on our potential for adaptation. It takes a special kind of infrastructure to provide what we would consider a humane lifestyle to billions of people, but smaller groups with low standards who just want to survive can subsist on very little. It's just not particularly pleasant and not the kind of lifestyle someone who grew in a more prosperous time would like to comtemplate though.
    Last edited by Magn; 08-12-2014 at 09:30.

  7. #52
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Magn View Post
    Instead, because we refuse to do any sort of weeding, however humane it would be, we've chosen to let external factors do all that weeding for us and it will be a much harsher taskmaster than we would be. It won't have any qualms about making countless people die in a very non-humane way and wiping out entire societies to ultimately get it right.
    Nothing even remotely humane about obligated euthanasia/castration. It's been tried for various disgusting and injustifiable reasons. There's simply no way to justify something like that. It would be far easier(because it's pretty much almost in our reach) to start genetically modify ourselves for excellence, artificial evolution/selection, we're not that many decades from when it will be feasible. which would essentially render selection irrelevant, we just engineer traits for excellence instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magn View Post
    I'm not saying extinction of the entire species would be impossible, but I think it accidentally occuring as a result of our actions would be extremely improbable. If we'd wipe out our entire species, it would be quite deliberate, not accidental.
    I agree, I wasn't referring to accidental extermination but we've made up so many various nasty weapons to kill each others with that we can kill of the entire planet literally a thousand times over, a War going overboard into a global conflict could easily turn into a global extinction event.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magn View Post
    However, we are entirely capable of "accidentally" (most likely by turning a blind eye to facts we have) making our civilisation crumbles, screwing up our ecosystems in such a way that prosperity is not feasible for a very long time and force smaller pockets of populations to subsist on very little for the foreseeable future.
    Screwed up ecosystems won't be what will kill us off as a species, not directly anyway. What is far more likely to happen is that ****ed up ecosystems/resource scarcity will lead to us fighting over the habitable areas or the resources and because of my previous point we can easily exterminate ourselves in that process, one simple acronym... MAD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magn View Post
    I wouldn't diss on our potential for adaptation. It takes a special kind of infrastructure to provide what we would consider a humane lifestyle to billions of people, but smaller groups with low standards who just want to survive can subsist on very little. It's just not particularly pleasant and not the kind of lifestyle someone who grew in a more prosperous time would like to comtemplate though.
    Yeah, the requirements for human survival is a far cry from what we determine as "essential" for modern life.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  8. #53
    Postaholic chalsdk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Greator Denmark
    Posts
    838
    Firstly Palen - I think you just earned my Respect!

    Secound, to claim Evolution is a fact is firstly FULL RETARD! Not even the uni books says so, as you will get FIRED, just as you do if you as a historian says jesus did not exist as a person, walking around, and is the one the scripture talks about ( not the actions, just the very existence).

    Site note - I tend to find your kind of peaple belive that Julies was very real..

    If you feel its so facty, why do you know claim the 1 mio US dollers that is offered to prove it - And not to Bull**** anyone, Darwinian evolution (aka A dog becomes something else, not another Dog!)


    TO OP - Yes, your right.

    Site note - IF we are blody serius about evolution, and not a soft kind that just like to huggle around and going FULL lies and bull**** out self, then we HAVE to accept that some peaple are by the very nature BETTERS - since they can uphold the way humans, and others will pull os down, and they used to die off, but know we can keep em alive, and so on. And they will get babyes and sick(degraded) DNA will spreed, and in due course humaninity is Doomed.

    OFc we might nuke our self first, or be able to course such things, but in case we dont - shame. Idioocracy is a funny film, go se it. Gives a Great view in this thing..

  9. #54
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    Firstly Palen - I think you just earned my Respect!

    Secound, to claim Evolution is a fact is firstly FULL RETARD! Not even the uni books says so, as you will get FIRED, just as you do if you as a historian says jesus did not exist as a person, walking around, and is the one the scripture talks about ( not the actions, just the very existence).
    The only such challenge that I'm aware of is not about evolution in general but human origin in particular, specifically the "missing link" and all that. It's a very important differentiation to make. Because scientists have observed evolution at work in lifeforms with considerably shorter lifespans than humans(hint: insects), take the peppered moth for example who has gone from a white butterfly with black spots to a mostly black butterfly(all because of the rise of soot particles in the air contaminating birches in the surrounding area during the industrial revolution) and now again, back to a white butterfly with black spots.

    In fact there are 3 common definitions of "evolution":
    1. Change over time, any change over time that is, not necessarily related to biology.
    2. The cause/mechanisms of this process of change, examined and/or explained by evolutionary theories.
    3. That all life forms have descended with modifications from a common ancestor

    The first one has and can be easily observed as we grow old and die, or as butterflies evolves from larvae to cocoon and finally to butterfly.
    The second one has been observed primarily in lifeforms with a short lifespan because evolutionary biological change is related to generations of individuals meaning that the longer the average lifespan of a lifeform is the longer it takes to study.
    The third one has yet to be proven by scientists and may very well never be because of the relative fragility of biological matter.

    So depending on which one of these you're referring to at the time you can very well talk about scientific fact(which is different from the regular definition of fact in that it is not immutable and unchangeable, it simply means that there is such a body of evidence that the chance of it being wrong is fairly minuscule, but as our knowledge is forever incomplete in any matter a scientist has to accept that there is always a chance separate from zero that any given fact can be wrong as our knowledge about our existence expands)

    So no you will probably not get fired for speaking about evolution as a fact depending on the circumstances and your choice of word.

    As to you comment about the historian, yes that is quite possible as there is a significant amount of evidence that points to Jesus as an actual historical person.

    There is a whole lot more conclusive evidence for evolution, even the common origin theory than there is for the existence of a so called "GOD", because there is absolutely zero evidence for such a creature, and there is more than zero evidence for the common origin theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    TO OP - Yes, your right.

    Site note - IF we are bloody serious about evolution, and not a soft kind that just like to huggle around and going FULL lies and bull**** out self, then we HAVE to accept that some people are by the very nature BETTERS - since they can uphold the way humans, and others will pull os down, and they used to die off, but know we can keep em alive, and so on. And they will get babyes and sick(degraded) DNA will spread, and in due course humanity is Doomed.

    OFc we might nuke our self first, or be able to course such things, but in case we dont - shame. Idioocracy is a funny film, go se it. Gives a Great view in this thing..
    No he's not, because Evolution concerns species and large populations, not individual specimens. And while some variations of humans are more well adapted to certain environments(darker coloured skin closer to the equator, higher proportions of brown fat cells in native populations closer to the poles) there has been no evidence of larger cerebral ability in any one group. There is variation within any given sample but there is no conclusive credible evidence as of yet to point to the cerebral superiority of one specific population group.
    But most certainly he's wrong because there is no such thing as different human races as there is not enough biological diversity within our species for us to be classified as different species or even sub species, therefore it's quite possible to believe in evolution and not be a racist as there is no such thing as different human races.
    Last edited by Elldallan; 18-12-2014 at 21:42.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  10. #55
    Postaholic chalsdk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Greator Denmark
    Posts
    838
    Im in a hurry - but I can tell you missed up.

    Adaption is NOT the same as evolution.

    A dog is still a dog, even thougt it looks diffent.

    A bug is still the very same bug even thougt its resistent to this or that. The same bug!

    Evolution, is a Dog and something new! like turning a cow into a horse.

    Ill get back to the rest in 40 ticks

  11. #56
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    Im in a hurry - but I can tell you missed up.

    Adaption is NOT the same as evolution.

    A dog is still a dog, even though it looks different.

    A bug is still the very same bug even though its resistant to this or that. The same bug!

    Evolution, is a Dog and something new! like turning a cow into a horse.

    Ill get back to the rest in 40 ticks
    Yes the common descent theory is part of Darwin's theory of evolution. And generally regarded as proven fact in the scientific sense. A lot of that proof comes through the study of mitochondrial DNA.

    But the study of evolution relates to how species change through natural selection and other factors over time, such as for example darker strains of a butterfly becoming more predominant because it's a more effective camouflage when the birches it normally hides out in are soot stained, then when the industrial revolution quieted down and the air became purer(and the birches became less soot stained again it was more beneficial to have a whiter camouflage so natural selection ran it's course over the time of many many generations.

    So you're the one who's wrong here, adaptation is part of the evolutionary process, over time, a great long long time that bug could turn into a completely different bug.

    Evolution is the study of changes in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Over sufficient time that can be a dog turning into something completely different, but that takes great long time, generally hundreds of thousands of years if not more and is hardly something a human with a lifespan of maybe a hundred years can study.
    But we can also see forced evolution in the artificial selection used when breeding dogs, there some pretty drastic changes can be seen fairly quickly. But when you study evolution ideally want something that goes through several generations in a year, preferably as many as possible, and that generally means studying bacteria or insects.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  12. #57
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    Firstly Palen - I think you just earned my Respect!

  13. #58
    Veteran pathetic sheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    Site note - IF we are blody serius about evolution, and not a soft kind that just like to huggle around and going FULL lies and bull**** out self, then we HAVE to accept that some peaple are by the very nature BETTERS - since they can uphold the way humans, and others will pull os down, and they used to die off, but know we can keep em alive, and so on. And they will get babyes and sick(degraded) DNA will spreed, and in due course humaninity is Doomed.
    Wrong. It is genes that are selected for or selected against. There are some gene mutations that kill you if you get a double set. This is one reason incest/inbreeding is bad idea. If the "betters" inbreed they will not give birth to "betters".

    Also some genes are selected for when they are scarce but selected against when they are common. Some genes that boost immunity will be like that. If most of a population has immunity against a specific parasite then the community also does not have the parasite. In that population individuals lacking the immune enhanced gene are "better" because they do not need immunity. In a population where most individuals do not have the gene the parasite could become common. Then the rare individuals who do have the immunity will be "better" and are likely to have more descendents.

  14. #59
    Postaholic chalsdk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Greator Denmark
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    Yes the common descent theory is part of Darwin's theory of evolution. And generally regarded as proven fact in the scientific sense. A lot of that proof comes through the study of mitochondrial DNA.

    But the study of evolution relates to how species change through natural selection and other factors over time, such as for example darker strains of a butterfly becoming more predominant because it's a more effective camouflage when the birches it normally hides out in are soot stained, then when the industrial revolution quieted down and the air became purer(and the birches became less soot stained again it was more beneficial to have a whiter camouflage so natural selection ran it's course over the time of many many generations.

    So you're the one who's wrong here, adaptation is part of the evolutionary process, over time, a great long long time that bug could turn into a completely different bug.

    Evolution is the study of changes in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Over sufficient time that can be a dog turning into something completely different, but that takes great long time, generally hundreds of thousands of years if not more and is hardly something a human with a lifespan of maybe a hundred years can study.
    But we can also see forced evolution in the artificial selection used when breeding dogs, there some pretty drastic changes can be seen fairly quickly. But when you study evolution ideally want something that goes through several generations in a year, preferably as many as possible, and that generally means studying bacteria or insects.
    I do know that there is alot that not realy knows what is a fact and whats not. The Arogasm (as a gasm) of humanity is quite high. Just a few goodies from the real world. HOW does gravaty work - no one knows, some pritty good teories out there, but we dont know. We know its there, but from a purely sceince point of view, IF I drop my lappy, I can not be sure it drops to the ground..

    Is this a 2 or 4th, or even a 3th genereration planet we live on - debate is there, most tend to say 3th.

    My wife is doing some reserch in Beer, becourse we dont realy fully understand why beer does a few things.. She just disproved a teory, and are now back to the drowing bord...

    And it goes on.. So when you and other Claims its a fact, I call you out on BULL**** - I have been at uni to become a teacher, in nature and sceince ( I dont pick the names of the topica..) - We had a teacher we also Claimed it was a fact, but all over it said teory or this is our Idea so far. And I did confront him a few times, and he did bend over, and sayed I was right, its nothing more then a weak theory - and he added - But its proberly true.. NOT a FACT.

    Alot of ateits goes all over with these facts, but never EVER look into it. They just take what the telli says or the kindergarden says.. (or primary schools!) ITs both lies and not realy true, if you have any education at all, beyound this, you will know that MOST things you learn in primary or gymnatium(a lvls or what ever you call em - PREE uni) is half truths or lies, to dump things down. For a good reason. But the way the westen world does this is problematic - insted of saying - We dont know jet, or, let it be - We go like "THIS IS FINAL knowegde!!"

    "So you're the one who's wrong here, adaptation is part of the evolutionary process, over time, a great long long time that bug could turn into a completely different bug." Plz come with a few things, And I love to send it over to america to pick up 250k US dollers of this. I can use a bit gold, I might even just by this game for it, as well as made a app. So pllz, come with these FACTS and studies! I am dying to hear them, and my bank is happy to know of the results.

    "But we can also see forced evolution in the artificial selection used when breeding dogs, there some pretty drastic changes can be seen fairly quickly."
    *A dog, was A dog, IS a dog, and will be A dog. Adaption - not Darwinian evolution.

    ***pathetic sheep
    "Wrong. It is genes that are selected for or selected against. There are some gene mutations that kill you if you get a double set. This is one reason incest/inbreeding is bad idea. If the "betters" inbreed they will not give birth to "betters". "
    OR over time the gens gets fixed up.. Its not like there is inbreeds all over islam is it ? Even thougt its a tendency in alot of cultures - that just happen to be islamic.

    I am glad you did bring this up "Also some genes are selected for when they are scarce but selected against when they are common. Some genes that boost immunity will be like that. If most of a population has immunity against a specific parasite then the community also does not have the parasite. In that population individuals lacking the immune enhanced gene are "better" because they do not need immunity. In a population where most individuals do not have the gene the parasite could become common. Then the rare individuals who do have the immunity will be "better" and are likely to have more descendents."

    OVer time the bacteria or what ever will defult. So even thougt its all anti XX, over time, it will be weak vs this thing. Just like flowers if you mix up White and Red you will get a mix, but over time, it will end up with just white and red.


    BUT - For the sheer argument, lets assume your right, just for the sake, WHY on this green planet is OP wrong?
    IF gens stay and like pathetic sheep sayd, inbredding is a thing(we all know it is), sooner or latet this will spreed, or some other inharited ****, and we will die off as a race becourse we do not protect our Gene Seed. and is it not Love to our own kids to do so? whatever the cost? is it not the same reason we spend a ****load of money on collige - in the hope it will do em good, and my Grandbabies will prosper..


    Palem - Palem
    Nice pulled :-)


    PS - I dont realy do alot of fancy forum stuf like you do - hope you can handle it - and find your stuf anyway :-)

  15. #60
    Forum Fanatic Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,018
    First of all,could you please "do the fancy forum stuff" it's not hard at all and it makes reading your rant so much easier.
    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    I do know that there is alot that not realy knows what is a fact and whats not. The Arogasm (as a gasm) of humanity is quite high.
    there's no such word, arrogance perhaps?
    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    Just a few goodies from the real world. HOW does gravaty work - no one knows, some pritty good teories out there, but we dont know. We know its there, but from a purely sceince point of view, IF I drop my lappy, I can not be sure it drops to the ground..

    Is this a 2 or 4th, or even a 3th genereration planet we live on - debate is there, most tend to say 3th.
    True, we don't know everything about everything yet including gravity. I assume you mean 3rd generation sun or 3rd generation solar system, because that's correct, the current theory is that our sun and by extension our solar system is a 3rd generation one, but to talk about a third generation planet would mean a planet that was destroyed and remade for the third time in this solar system which is not the theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    And it goes on.. So when you and other Claims its a fact, I call you out on BULL**** - I have been at uni to become a teacher, in nature and sceince ( I dont pick the names of the topica..) - We had a teacher we also Claimed it was a fact, but all over it said teory or this is our Idea so far. And I did confront him a few times, and he did bend over, and sayed I was right, its nothing more then a weak theory - and he added - But its proberly true.. NOT a FACT.
    And again you're mistaking the meaning and definition of a fact, you're mistaking it for the definition of a mathematical fact which are absolute since mathematics is a formal science(as opposed to natural sciences) there can be absolutes. Or perhaps you're mistaking if for the everyday definition of a fact which is also perceived as an absolute and incontrovertible.
    The definition of a scientific fact however is much less rigid, or as it's more usually called, a scientific proof(and here I'm going to quote wikipedia rather than bother to write a lengthy explanation saying the exact same thing. "Proof has other meanings as it descends from its Latin roots (provable, probable, probare(L)) meaning to test. In this sense a proof is an inference to the best or most parsimonious explanation through a publicly verifiable demonstration (a test) of the factual (i.e., observed) and causal evidence from carefully controlled experiments."

    So if your teacher really had a higher education in natural or formal sciences then for some reason he couldn't be arsed to enlighten you on this, why I don't know. But it is a fact(in the mathematical sense) that a scientific fact and a common/public/mathematical fact are very different from each other.

    In the words of H.J. Muller, a Nobel laureate:

    "There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact."
    So if a Nobel laureate can state that evolution is a fact then I doubt you'd be fired from your job as a scientst unless you were a "scientist" in Theology.

    The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes the following comment:

    Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.

    In fact there are many outstanding scientists who support evolution as a fact(in the scientific sense) or a theory AND a fact(in the scientific sense). So no, I seriously doubt you'd get fired for sharing that view.

    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    Alot of ateits goes all over with these facts, but never EVER look into it. They just take what the telli says or the kindergarden says.. (or primary schools!) ITs both lies and not realy true, if you have any education at all, beyound this, you will know that MOST things you learn in primary or gymnatium(a lvls or what ever you call em - PREE uni) is half truths or lies, to dump things down. For a good reason. But the way the westen world does this is problematic - insted of saying - We dont know jet, or, let it be - We go like "THIS IS FINAL knowegde!!"
    Yes I've studied in higher education, and it's true that lower school education often simplifies concepts in science or using outdated models that have since been updated/replaced. They are however not LIES, half truths certainly. But they do what they're supposed to, they teach a deep enough understanding of the science is question. Take Niels Bohr's atom model for example, it is almost exclusively what's taught in school and while not exactly incorrect the truth as we know it is far more complex, but if we taught the actual truth to students they'd have to spend their 3 years of gymnasium/high school learning only chemistry, so it explains things well enough but doesn't go into depth since depth at that education level is unnecessary and superfluous.
    And no, I've never seen any teacher say this is "Final knowledge" about any things science... except for the Biology teacher who was a member of the Jehovah sect and was subsequently barred from teaching Religion, sex education, evolution and many other parts of the Biology courses for exactly that very reason, being a religious fanatic is mutually exclusive to being a good teacher in these and many other subjects.
    But no, teaching evolution in school as opposed to the religious mumbo jumbo fairy tale explanation for the creation of the world is absolutely correct, Religion has even less evidence and fact to support it's claims that there is a magical fairy supreme being.

    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    Plz come with a few things, And I love to send it over to america to pick up 250k US dollers of this. I can use a bit gold, I might even just by this game for it, as well as made a app. So pllz, come with these FACTS and studies! I am dying to hear them, and my bank is happy to know of the results.
    What part of "a great long time" didn't you understand? And no, science can't produce fact in the regular sense until our understanding of the universe and all things are absolute, at which point we'll be the gods and there would be no need for such explanation. But please, if you wanna play that card then come up with absolute and incontrovertible evidence that there is a magical fairytale supreme being watching over us. And then there's the issue about who's "right" there's a bazillion religions and most of them are mutually exclusive(we're right and you're wrong". Personally I think this would be an absolute horror if it turned out to be true in the case of one of the Abrahmitic religions because the Abrahmitic "God" comes across as a cruel and mean deity with an obsessive need for self glorification. So if any religion turns out to be true I hope it's one of the others, the Norse one maybe, or the Buddhist one, or maybe the Mayan one? Damn how screwed we'd be if a long dead religion turned out to be the real one. And that's my issue with the opposing side, there's absolutely not even a single shred of evidence or fact(scientific or otherwise) of any kind, it's all "we're right and you're wrong and that makes you a heretic, so if we feel like it today have to kill you"

    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    "But we can also see forced evolution in the artificial selection used when breeding dogs, there some pretty drastic changes can be seen fairly quickly."
    *A dog, was A dog, IS a dog, and will be A dog. Adaption - not Darwinian evolution.
    Adaptation or natural selection as it's typically called(even when it's "unnatural"/forced selection) is a part of Darwinian evolution, an integral part at that. How many times do I have to repeat this? over the course of several thousand years we've bred the wolf into everything from chihuahuas to Great Danes... if we continue that process for a few million years it can turn into something completely different

    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    BUT - For the sheer argument, lets assume your right, just for the sake, WHY on this green planet is OP wrong?
    IF gens stay and like pathetic sheep sayd, inbredding is a thing(we all know it is), sooner or latet this will spreed, or some other inharited ****, and we will die off as a race becourse we do not protect our Gene Seed. and is it not Love to our own kids to do so? whatever the cost? is it not the same reason we spend a ****load of money on collige - in the hope it will do em good, and my Grandbabies will prosper..
    Because there's no absolute truth to what's better, it's mostly all just a human perception and if we started mandatory spaying of "inferior" humans the nxt logical step would be to just kill them off because if they're inferior and undesirable then why let them live and take up resources at all...
    And we all know how it turned out the last time somebody tried that, a whole lot of people were gassed to death and a World War was fought that led to the death of even more people.
    What gives you the moral right to determine who is inferior and who is "good enough"?
    We don't yet know enough detail about our genes to make that choice, and if we did it'd just be easier or at least morally obligatory to just engineer everybody to have perfect genes instead(which is something I'm not opposed to but most religious persons are since that would be 'interfering with "God's" plan'.
    Last edited by Elldallan; 21-12-2014 at 16:31.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •