| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
 | ||
| Reepicheep |
OK, that one is pretty funny... | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422557/plann ed-parenthood-ben-carson A buddy bought Ben Carson magnets before he announced. One is on my Fridge. I think I like this guy, although he may not be glib enough to get the job. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
You mean the guy/doctor who doesnt believe in evolution?? | ||
| Sifo |
Hybrid, just curious. Have you ever taken a serious look at any theory other than evolution? Just wondering. | ||
| Hootowl |
Evolution is not a theory. Natural selection is a theory. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
What other 'theories' should I be looking at? Are you to tell me that evolution hasnt happened/doesnt exist? | ||
| Torquehd |
Macro evolution is a theory. It is a religious belief. It can not be proven. It has never been observed. If we ever witness one line of species become another, then that will be a fact. But if all you have are theories and not one evidence of missing links (whereas there should be more crossover skeletons than distinct species skeletons).... it's long past time for scientists to admit that evolution is a state-funded religion. | ||
| Sifo |
Hybrid, no I'm not telling you that evolution doesn't happen. I'm asking you what other theories you have taken a serious look at. From your response, it sounds like none. That's a pretty closed minded view when you are laughing at someone else who thinks a different theory may hold some weight. | ||
| Hootowl |
DNA exists. DNA mutates. Species change as a result. It's a medical fact. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
When you already have the facts why would you look elsewhere? You might call it closed minded, I call it not wasting any time on useless theories | ||
| Sifo |
Yep, the science is settled. | ||
| Torquehd |
Mutations, to my knowledge, have never been observed to give the mutant an advantage. Mutants have disadvantages and survival of the fittest works against them. While traits may be emphasized within a species through selective breeding, the code is already extant. Diminishing surrounding code is not the same as new (and beneficial) code being created. The "science" is not settled. That's why it has changed over the years and will continue to do so. I can't seem to embed this from my phone. | ||
| Torquehd |
https://youtu.be/Q8DDIe_2cHM | ||
| Reepicheep |
What's funny is that the extremists on both sides of the evolution debate are both wrong about the same thing. The hardcore young earth creationists say evolution can't exist because God exists. The hardcore Evolutionists say God can't exist because evolution exists. I chuckle that they are both wrong about the same thing. Evolution could absolutely be the mechanism by which God gave life an ongoing self correcting system, which life must by definition have to be a sustainable presence in an ever changing universe. And in fact a God that would create a universe of life without a self correction mechanism would be an imperfect God. So now you know where I stand.  | ||
| Hootowl |
^That. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Yep, the science is settled." That's not a fair comparison. Plenty of climate scientists disagree with AGW hysteria. The only people I see on the "evolution is bullcrap" side of the issue are religious fundamentalists. The biologists all agree. Sometimes (well, most of the time) science leaves no room for debate. (You don't debate science, something is true or it isn't. Arguing about it won't change it.) I don't buy the AGW hysteria, but I'm very sure that we did not walk the Earth with dinosaurs 5000 years ago. Carbon dating is pretty accurate, something that no one disagrees with. That seems to be a huge hole in the idea that God created the universe literally in six days. Question...what's a day to God? One Earth day? Why? | ||
| Sifo |
Well as long as we are taking this thread way off topic, there's no need to look to religion to find alternate theories of where we came from. You have one theory where after the spark of life here on Earth, we eventually evolved. Then you have a theory that aliens found the earth populated with animals, and we are a hybrid of them and one of our natural primates. Then you have a theory that we are a society of aliens that colonized the Earth that already had animal life. This theory requires DNA to be very similar across large segments of at least our corner of the universe. None of these theories requires a deity. None are proven to be true, or false. Yet Hybridmomentspass claims to know the facts on which, if any of these are true. Of course, he's not closed minded on this issue.  As for carbon dating, could not an all powerful deity set things up to simply look like there's a history of millions of years when in reality, things are only a few thousand years old? Not my personal believe, just pointing out how such an idea may not seem to far out there to the young earth Christians. But then, how long is a day for a deity who's existence isn't confined to the third rock from our star? Reepicheep -  Of course, there's still that nagging question about actual observance of one species making the jump to another. If it's a very gradual process, then there should be a clear fossil record that show this happening. We see jumps from one to the next though. If it happens in jumps, then you would be likely to see it happening very often, with most dying off in the first generation simply because they have no one to mate with. Only once in a great while would you get a mating pair of a new species that happens to also be an improvement over the new species, and therefor survive and propagate. I'm glad we know all the facts though, and there's no need to ask any further questions. | ||
| Aesquire |
Hybrid..... do you have a link to a candidate's comments on evolution? Don't have the time or inclination to discuss it now, i lean towards catastrophe theory. But I have noticed that as a candidate rises in the polls he or she gets attacked. Some attacks are bogus, others legit. I don't want to dismiss a good job applicant because of lies. Do you? | ||
| Sifo |
Why would a candidates beliefs on evolution be relevant to their abilities to be President anyway? Assuming they aren't trying to legislate evolution at least. No doubt we will get to where we tax it, and that will be OK. | ||
| Hootowl |
It's rare that a dead organism ends up fossilized. It has to die under just the right circumstances. There are probably also billions of fossils buried in the Earth's crust that we will never find. Ever. That we have not found a trove of fossil evidence of small gradual changes to species over time is not surprising. That may never happen. "could not an all powerful deity set things up to simply look like there's a history of millions of years" I've read that book. Those Magratheans really know their stuff. That's a (brilliant) work of fiction though, and isn't germane to this conversation. This isn't entirely off topic. I'm sure a few of the R candidates don't believe evolution is a real thing. There sure were last go round. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Why would a candidates beliefs on evolution be relevant to their abilities to be President" It speaks volumes about their ability to think rationally. I think that's important. Lots of people do. | ||
| Sifo |
I've read that book. I didn't know it was a book. It just seems like a reasonable thing for an all powerful deity to be able to do. "Why would a candidates beliefs on evolution be relevant to their abilities to be President" It speaks volumes about their ability to think rationally. I think that's important. Lots of people do. Like perhaps the believe that you can borrow you way to prosperity? | ||
| Aesquire |
You want to avoid a few things in your hiring decisions. Someone who clings to phlogiston theory may be a poor choice to run your incinerator. A closeted gay is a poor choice for pubic office. Blackmail, you know. Openly gay folk don't have that problem. ( and are unlikely to get your daughter pregnant ) Someone who insists the science is settled when they never took a class in the subject at hand will probably be dogmatic about other things they are utterly ignorant about. And far more likely to approve you being taken to a reeducation camp. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Like perhaps the believe that you can borrow you way to prosperity?" Exactly. That's why I won't vote Dem. Or Socialist. FYI - Magrathea was populated by a race of beings who built planets to order. When they had to replace a planet on short notice, namely the Earth, they went to the trouble of burying dinosaur bones in the crust. Douglas Adams was a genius. | ||
| Reepicheep |
My only beef is that the knife only seems to cut one way for that kind of "poke at dogmatic positions of candidates". Young earth creationist? You get crucified and mocked by the media. Margarine is better then butter? DDT should be banned world wide to save the birds? Catasrophic anthromorphic global warming? Nobody says boo. We all have dogmas (beliefs that we adjust or selectively find facts to fit). I want a president that can see past it, I don't require one that is completely free from it. In fact, most great discoveries and successes are based on an irrational pursuit of a preconceived notion. It's just one that turns out to be correct. The fact that it's dogma doesn't mean it's right. That doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong either. | ||
| Sifo |
Should have recognized that as Adams.  I just find it funny that this is a great excuse to not vote for Carson, even though I doubt anyone has done a serious investigation about what his beliefs may be, and those beliefs have little to nothing to do with any sort of policy. On the other hand, the current president "collective salvation" from his religion to actually justify his policies, and nobody says boo. | ||
| Aesquire |
You mean Liberation Theology (black, urban, anti-American variant according to the originators of the religion, the Soviet KGB ) a faith correctly labeled by the previous Pope "demonic"? You won't even hear the word dogma attached to that one. And it's all dogma. Until I get a link to a quote I have no reason to think a second hand ( or fourth hand ) comment on a candidate is real. I can point to Hillary talking about her criminal destruction of public records. Or The Donald being in favor of eminent domain to steal your house for a rich guy. Or..... | ||
| Sifo |
There seems to be something about Carson not believing in evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson#Evolution Even with what's quoted though, I find it hard to get a feel for exactly what he does and does not accept. It's kind of like the question of "do you believe in global warming". It depends on what you mean by global warming in the first place. Same with evolution. This is a situation where context is everything. From what I can gather, this is about believing in evolution vs. creationism, not about does evolution in any form ever happen. There's a lot of gray area in the middle there. Exactly where the truth lies about Ben Carson, I have no idea. I do know that I've been called a climate change denier many times, but nothing could be further from the truth. | ||
| Hootowl |
I still like Carson. If he's a creationist (in the 6 earth day sense of the word)...I guess I'll just live with it. |
