Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Political Correctness Vs Common Sense
#41
Don't leftist science teachers proselytize AGW and evolution? These are dicta of the religious (secular) left.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#42
jt Wrote:Don't leftist science teachers proselytize AGW and evolution? These are dicta of the religious (secular) left.
Excuse me. But what is so spiritual about AGW or evolution? Is there some kind of GOD correlated to these themes that I have not heard about? What is so supernatural about them?
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#43
They are supernatural because they are mythical subjective opinion presented as accepted science. AGW is not settled science. There is no model that works - and no database that backs it which is accepted by a majority of scientists in the Climate research field. Even the databases that appear to be objective and non-agenda driven, like the NASA temperature database, has been found to be flawed, mostly presenting the areas in high-heat areas, and ignoring the vast majority of the world, which has been found to be much cooler.

Evolution is supernatural because although it may have more basis in science than AGW, most attempt to scrutinize the many faults in it are rejected without scientific rebuttal or open debate. The scientist who point out errors and inconsistencies are black-listed as apostates.
Reply
#44
Grizz, check these out
AGW as religion
another

About evolution, as religion
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#45
jt Wrote:Grizz, check these out
AGW as religion
another

About evolution, as religion

I will go along with the first two, but not completely with the third. If some wish to worship evolution, that is their business. However, it is just plain science, and is rightly referred to as Natural Selection.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#46
WmLambert Wrote:They are supernatural because they are mythical subjective opinion presented as accepted science. AGW is not settled science. There is no model that works - and no database that backs it which is accepted by a majority of scientists in the Climate research field. Even the databases that appear to be objective and non-agenda driven, like the NASA temperature database, has been found to be flawed, mostly presenting the areas in high-heat areas, and ignoring the vast majority of the world, which has been found to be much cooler.

Evolution is supernatural because although it may have more basis in science than AGW, most attempt to scrutinize the many faults in it are rejected without scientific rebuttal or open debate. The scientist who point out errors and inconsistencies are black-listed as apostates.
If I go by all of what you say than one might just as well state that religion is a science.
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#47
John L Wrote:
jt Wrote:Grizz, check these out
AGW as religion
another

About evolution, as religion

I will go along with the first two, but not completely with the third. If some wish to worship evolution, that is their business. However, it is just plain science, and is rightly referred to as Natural Selection.

Agreed, and unlike most beliefs and theories, it's the only accepted theory so far that has had ample evidence to back it up. Fossils, bones of our ancient ancestors, bones of other animals that now exist in a different form.... and stuff like that.

Granted, we still don't know everything about evolution but that's the good thing about science-- We study everything, and we constantly test it for any faults. And the more we learn, we discard all the faulty parts and keep the things that has plenty of evidence to back it up. You cannot say the same for crap such as creationism (no offense intended to any people who believe in that sort of thing).

To be quite frank... I think the only reason why idiots reject it is because they still think that evolution is all about the whole "Humans evolved from monkeys!!" tripe. there's so much more to it than that, and they're basically confusing an exincit hominid with the current monkeys. Sometimes Layman terms to explain evolution can be misleading, and it's every person's responsblity to educate themselves well about how Evolution works.
Evolution has never stated that humans came from monkeys, just that those monkeys are like our very distant cousins 1,000 times removed. That's a big difference from saying "Humans came from monkeys", as many anti-evolution folks seems to believe.

Besides, for those who say that evolution goes against god, consider this fact: What if Evolution was caused by God? What if he just simply triggered an set of reactionary chain, knowing well what would happen? What if that whole Creationism thing where he created the world in 7 days were just an dumbed-down story to explain evolution? After all, they did say that God created humans out of the earth... it could be an sort of metaphor for the days that an creature emerged out of the ooze and then evoluted into humans.

Just think about it. There's no reason for Science and religion to be at odds with each other.

There's an thread on this exact topic on a different fourm I go to.. and the person there spoke about how ID/Creationists push a lot of lies:
Quote:The so-called "holes" in evolutionary theory, while I don't know them all--I'm not out to disprove it--are tied to the "teach the controversy" bull that the creationists/ID people push. Basically, they tout such things as "macro evolution has never been observed", "it's only a theory", the mystery of the Cambrian explosion, and the "irreducible complexity" they so know and love, to name a few. Heymelby in the extraterrestrial civilization thread also touched on a few.

THAT is where the major and common holes in evolutionary theory are, and because most of the public that they preach to is largely ignorant of advanced scientific principles, or even the scientific method, they can get away with their quick-to-swallow keywords. Which never turn out to be facts but just easy words that stick in the back of the mind forever.

Creationists/ID speaks in layman's terms so the masses listen to them, and science, with its large vocabulary, is left misunderstood for the most part.

And from another person:
Quote:"macro evolution has never been observed"? Like, there aren't a string of creatures moderatately mutated from eachother, but sharing the same DNA sequences and unable to interbreed? I find that hard to believe.

"Irreducible complexity" is a fun one. Because someone - usually without a scientific background - observes a creature to have complex interworking parts that they personally can't figure out separate purposes for - that means the creature is too complex to have evolved "by chance".

(of course, evolution isn't chance, it's by rigidly defined conditions based on environment)

But the fact that someone can't figure out something complex isn't proof of something being "irreducibly complex", but rather a failure on that person's imagination. So far, every creature used to show as an example of an "irreducibly complexity" has been debunked by scientists.

I basically agree with those two people...
Reply
#48
Grizzly, if there is a religion that is the true religion, the one that reveals the real truth of reality, then that religion would have to be science, since it would be impossbile for truth not to be science, by the very definition of what science means.

If God really did create the earth, and did inspire the writing of Genesis, then any attempt to teach science without using the Genesis record would fail of being true science.
Reply
#49
Aurora Moon Wrote:Agreed, and unlike most beliefs and theories, it's the only accepted theory so far that has had ample evidence to back it up. Fossils, bones of our ancient ancestors, bones of other animals that now exist in a different form.... and stuff like that.
The fossil evidence to back it up is not ample. There are many more questions raised than answered.

There are in fact many problems with evolutionary theory, which are based on science and observation, and have nothing to do with creationism or ID. As a matter of (quite ironical fact), Ben Stein, in his recent movie, got Dawkins to admit on camera that "it appears that there may have been some intelligent design, perhaps by a superior race from a distant galaxy" (or something to that effect).

If you are interested, I will give you a good web site that discusses the problems with evolution.

The intellectual difficulty seems to come from those who wish to deny a role to some God in the name of "pure science", and those who wish to discredit religion in general. Dawkins is in the latter group. On the other side, you have those who believe in first causes or in a creating God. In my opinion, these intellectual hangups cloud the whole issue.

ID is not based on theology. It is (partly) a purely scientific observation that certain chemical combinations almost surely could not have been produced by random interactions in the whole universe for all of time. The probabilities of the chemical reactions in question are well known scientifically. The evolutionists, just like the global warmists, respond with calling the people who point this out "creationists" (a bad name in elite circles). They do not try to rebut the scientific point. There are other arguments in ID as well which are quite scientifically valid as statements that an honest evolutionist must answer. They are received in the same way, not with scientific consideration, but with derision or ad hominum attacks. So much for "dispassionate scientists".

If you want to be honestly scientific, you must divorce yourself from religious tenets. The evolutionists by and large do not do this, nor do the "pure creationists". I am not willing to discuss this matter further with people who are unwilling to suspend their religious or anti-religious sentiments and look for the truth.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#50
jt Wrote:If you want to be honestly scientific, you must divorce yourself from religious tenets. The evolutionists by and large do not do this, nor do the "pure creationists". I am not willing to discuss this matter further with people who are unwilling to suspend their religious or anti-religious sentiments and look for the truth.

I agree - the two concepts are not automatically mutually exclusive.

Unless we wipe ourselves out - in which case how we came about won't really matter - I believe that our quest for knowledge will ultimately allow us to know all that can be known. Included in that, would be any questions regarding God - proof of God's existence or non-existence. Until we get to that point, it'll always be conjecture or hypothesis or theory or belief(whichever word you prefer). By definition, knowing it all will mean that there will be no doubt. Until we get to that point, we should strive to learn more, not work to limit another's knowledge.

At least, that's the way I would want it, if I were God.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#51
Strictly concerning the term "evolution",I wish not,but it has come to mean "God did not create man" OR "This God thing is a ridiculous joke of you un educated idiots".

I know when John uses the term he's strictly discussing natural selection,but I can tell everyone for a fact that many atheists in the science community mean it as it has come to be seen by people like me,a claim that monkeys became mankind.
For those who think I'm full of crap,visit the ORNL and observe the charts showing the monkey in about 10 variations becoming a human.

When I read the term,that's what I automatically think of .
Reply
#52
Palladin Wrote:Strictly concerning the term "evolution",I wish not,but it has come to mean "God did not create man" OR "This God thing is a ridiculous joke of you un educated idiots".

I know when John uses the term he's strictly discussing natural selection,but I can tell everyone for a fact that many atheists in the science community mean it as it has come to be seen by people like me,a claim that monkeys became mankind.
For those who think I'm full of crap,visit the ORNL and observe the charts showing the monkey in about 10 variations becoming a human.

When I read the term,that's what I automatically think of .

Patrick, I have never seen a chart showing monkeys becoming man. What I have seen, on the other hand, is man, including other apes, and monkeys, originating from a common ancestor.

And as for the evolution-atheist connection, I look at this as an attempt by a part of the fundamentalist Christian community to demonize two groups in one, just because there are some cases where some are within both camps. It's a 'straw dog' argument.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#53
There is plenty of demonizing to go around. The science in both Natural Selection and Intelligent Design could very easily fit in the same book, looking for answers - yet the two camps seem passionately antagonistic to each other.

There are parts of evolutionary science that may defy simple logic, and some things that appear unexplainable via Intelligent Design that can be explained. If more effort were made by the Evolution zealots to seriously refute or answer questions raised by honorable scientists, then the issue could be called science and not folly.
Reply
#54
Well, WmLambert, let's stress that Intelligent Design not automatically means your god did it, he's even the feeblest candidate. Far more likely is that an older alien culture messed with our genetic soup.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#55
Are they still watching us, from far away in another galaxy, or even right here in our midst? If so, are they amused or concerned?
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#56
quadrat Wrote:Well, WmLambert, let's stress that Intelligent Design not automatically means your god did it, he's even the feeblest candidate. Far more likely is that an older alien culture messed with our genetic soup.
Actually, though you are trying to goose religion with your post, I agree with you. Intelligent Design does not, and never has, been Creationism. There is some overlap with the backers of both ID and Creationism but what each hypothesis is based on are different.

However, please understand that "feeblest candidate" is ridiculously subjective. Even if an alien progenitor is one day discovered to have mentored our little planet, the question still remains "where did they come from?"
Reply
#57
WmLambert Wrote:
quadrat Wrote:Well, WmLambert, let's stress that Intelligent Design not automatically means your god did it, he's even the feeblest candidate. Far more likely is that an older alien culture messed with our genetic soup.
Actually, though you are trying to goose religion with your post, I agree with you. Intelligent Design does not, and never has, been Creationism. There is some overlap with the backers of both ID and Creationism but what each hypothesis is based on are different.

However, please understand that "feeblest candidate" is ridiculously subjective. Even if an alien progenitor is one day discovered to have mentored our little planet, the question still remains "where did they come from?"
Uh huh, I kind of expected that. Are you implying every word in your holy script is a lie, then? Actually, ID is Creationism with a fresh and feeble make up, and designed to strengthen religion. Folks who believe in aliens are a bit frowned upon, while those who have faith in the funny story of an allmighty creator are perfectly accepted. That's what things are like. Never mind. If it turns out one day that aliens did it, you just transfer the prayers. They are good for manipulating folks the way you need them as well. "The Klingons want you to behave this way."
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#58
WmLambert Wrote:There is plenty of demonizing to go around. The science in both Natural Selection and Intelligent Design could very easily fit in the same book, looking for answers - yet the two camps seem passionately antagonistic to each other.

There are parts of evolutionary science that may defy simple logic, and some things that appear unexplainable via Intelligent Design that can be explained. If more effort were made by the Evolution zealots to seriously refute or answer questions raised by honorable scientists, then the issue could be called science and not folly.

You make some interesting points William but you're not specific. And calling the evolutinists zealots is a little subjective too. What questions raised by honorable scientists have not been refuted or answered by the evolution 'zealots'? Why would an evolutionist even want to try to refute an honorable scientist?

And pray tell what evolutionary science defies simple logic?
Reply
#59
CharlieW Wrote:And calling the evolutinists zealots is a little subjective too.
Try reading Dawkins latest books and see if you can say to me with a straight face "Dawkins is not a zealot".
The God Delusion (and others)
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#60
Califonia ban 'Brides' and 'Grooms' that privilege is now only extented to 'Party A' and Party B'. You can thank the Leftards for this.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Political Correctness Gone Amok Canuknucklehead 13 2,968 10-09-2018, 12:27 PM
Last Post: John L
  Common Sense as a Question... WmLambert 2 365 08-21-2018, 02:43 PM
Last Post: John L
  Political-Economic Common Sense with Dr Dan Mitchell John L 1 1,027 04-26-2013, 12:05 PM
Last Post: John L
  Political Correctness < Common Sense in MT Prisons Gunnen4u 8 1,549 02-22-2010, 11:29 AM
Last Post: Palladin
  Texans Have More Common Sense Than Others John L 1 726 08-16-2008, 05:30 AM
Last Post: quadrat
  No Touching! Political Correctness Gone Amuk? John L 13 3,177 06-20-2007, 04:32 PM
Last Post: bringbackwigs
  Political Correctness comes back to bite one of its mothers Independents4Bush 1 1,157 12-12-2006, 05:56 AM
Last Post: Fit2BThaied

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)