Man United NSR Politics thread

[Sapphire]

Someone should make this their Sig:

StrikerCW's solution for peace in the Middle East, "Go back in time and put the Jews in Alaska. There's plenty of room there." ;) :DYes, there's the way to keep our politics forum on the D-Low. ;)

[Howard Zinn]

It's not that I see in the future, but look at what science has accomplished in the last two hundred years. You can think someone said this exact thing back then, they would have never thought we would have the technology we do today.
I'm certainly not an expert on the topic, however I took classes and like to do read about it in my spare time, I attended several lectures by the most accomplished teachers of evolution. I really don't want to brag but if anyone actually thinks there are holes in the idea behind evolution, then those people have to actually study it instead of just calling sh!t out of the blue.

And please don't link scientists with corrupt politicians. They don't have the same goals in mind, so it's an obscure conclusion on your behalf.


Yeah, no holes in the THEORY of evolution. Got ya. Thanks for putting all doubts out of the minds of everyone.

Politicians are corrupt, yet scientists aren't? Anyone see the the guy at the university in Korea or wherever in Asia that said he had cloned something, but turned out to be completely fake. No corruption in the world of science.

[Sapphire]

Oh, relevant to the discussion of scientific theory and what is science actually, and all that, y'all might like to read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Or, you might not like to read it; the guy's a physicist so. . . maybe google or wiki it. Some interesting ideas.

[SirManchester]

We seem to be in agreement that progress will be made, and serious technological advancement. I just don't believe in "final truth" I guess. Maybe because I do have spiritual beliefs at the core of my thinking about the world, I think there are things that are in a sense unknowable. Also, looking at the history of man, we're not very good at pulling together and finding the truth for its own sake. We usually destroy each other first.

(Try taking a course in postmodern philosophy or theory for one of your electives; you won't be bored then if you believe in absolute truth :D )

I genuinly think we have the ability to get to the "final truth" or at least get as close as possible. Maybe if every religious freak would focus more on accepting science as an explaination of our materialistic reality, then we would maybe make progress a bit easier.

[SirManchester]

Yeah, no holes in the THEORY of evolution. Got ya. Thanks for putting all doubts out of the minds of everyone.

Politicians are corrupt, yet scientists aren't? Anyone see the the guy at the university in Korea or wherever in Asia that said he had cloned something, but turned out to be completely fake. No corruption in the world of science.

Go ahead, ask your questions about evolution, I'll be more than happy to put an end to your doubts.
And you can't seriously believe Scientists are as corrupt as Politicians, Scientists are much more genuine about their goals, they actually want to progress, to reach the answer they have been working on. Sure there are corrupt and immoral scientists out there, just like there is a corrup everything, but you cannot compare them to politicians and you cannot compare science to peace in the middle east. They're completely different.

[Howard Zinn]

Go ahead, ask your questions about evolution, I'll be more than happy to put an end to your doubts.
And you can't seriously believe Scientists are as corrupt as Politicians, Scientists are much more genuine about their goals, they actually want to progress, to reach the answer they have been working on. Sure there are corrupt and immoral scientists out there, just like there is a corrup everything, but you cannot compare them to politicians and you cannot compare science to peace in the middle east. They're completely different.


If humans developed from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? ;)

Your idealistic view about all things science is quite frightening.

Edit: Did I just misspell monkies?

Second Edit: Maybe I misspelled it in the edit? Damn my spelling. *shakes fist at myself*

[SirManchester]

If humans developed from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? ;)

You're idealistic view about all things science is quite frightening.

Edit: Did I just misspell monkies?

Second Edit: Maybe I misspelled it in the edit? Damn my spelling. *shakes fist at myself*

There's a common misconception among critics of evolution, and now I see you have made the same mistake.
Humans did not come from monkey. Humans and monkey however, have one common ancestor from which we both evolved from. It's much more complicated than this, but this is the simplest way I can put it.
Like I said, if you're interested in this, please read more about it other than just going along with what everyone else tells you. You'll be surprised at how much you can get out of it.

[Howard Zinn]

There's a common misconception among critics of evolution, and now I see you have made the same mistake.
Humans did not come from monkey. Humans and monkey however, have one common ancestor from which we both evolved from. It's much more complicated than this, but this is the simplest way I can put it.
Like I said, if you're interested in this, please read more about it other than just going along with what everyone else tells you. You'll be surprised at how much you can get out of it.


Again SM, I must reiterate that I AGREE with you ya silly wanker. I think that evolution is CORRECT. I was just screwing around with you with the monkey post. Dang, do I have to flash that message on a big neon-light sign?

I am disagreeing with you on the basis that it is 100% complete, mainly because you'll never EVER be able to prove to religious people that their views are wrong and that there is no God.

[SirManchester]

Again SM, I must reiterate that I AGREE with you ya silly wanker. I think that evolution is CORRECT. I was just screwing around with you with the monkey post. Dang, do I have to flash that message on a big neon-light sign?

I am disagreeing with you on the basis that it is 100% complete, mainly because you'll never EVER be able to prove to religious people that their views are wrong and that there is no God.

Sometimes I'm too serious, I can't control that, I'm always surrounded by idiots outside of BS and I always have to deal with uneducated people, that transcends to here, I don't mean to wind anyone up.

Evolution is a fixed theory, it's a theory in the same way that the idea of matter is made of atoms is a theory, that bacteria cause disease is a theory, that the sun being the center of the solar system is a theory. Any of these might be incorrect( and good scientists must always consider that possibility), but scientists accept all of them as provisionally "true" because there is so much evidence to support them.

[littleman]

Sometimes I'm too serious, I can't control that, I'm always surrounded by idiots outside of BS and I always have to deal with uneducated people, that transcends to here, I don't mean to wind anyone up.

Evolution is a fixed theory, it's a theory in the same way that the idea of matter is made of atoms is a theory, that bacteria cause disease is a theory, that the sun being the center of the solar system is a theory. Any of these might be incorrect( and good scientists must always consider that possibility), but scientists accept all of them as provisionally "true" because there is so much evidence to support them.

The falsifiability of evolution is precisely why it should be taught in science classes, and why intelligent design/creationism should not. Both ID and creationism are not empirically-based and have no real falsifiable content. The notion of 'falsifiability' as a requisite for being a scientific theory was first brought up by Karl Popper, and although it's been undermined by more advanced arguments, it's still one of the most widely used ideas to judge whether one thing is a theory or not.

Evolution offers many things that are in line with science -- including predictory power. ID does not.

Where ID comes in is in its supposed power in explaining how *everything* in the universe started; which is the big bang. Something can't come out of nothing, so God -- the eternal entity, must exist. Explaining abiogenesis is also one of the most difficult problems that modern science faces. There are plenty of speculative scientific theories working on these two problems.

Result:
Evolution in science classes.
ID in religious classes.

[johno]

You and many others fail to see the value of science. Just look where it's gotten us so far. From the first stone tools to the ipod for one thing. It's made an astonishing progression in two hundred years alone. There's hard evidence in science which has proven and clarified A LOT of things since man first intemplated it. In due time, we will be able to figure it all out, whether its in two hundred more or even several thousands of years more, I'm certain we will figure it out. Science itself is evolving so what's so crazy about not believing that it will one day answer the big question.
As for creationism, or intelligent design, there's no hard evidence, it's just a silly theory with no backing up. What can anyone possibly gain out of being taught these two ideas? other than an assumption.

I fail to see the value of science??? that's harsh... I was 6months away from sitting my GCE's in Biology, Chemisty and Physics (among other things) and wanted to be a marine biologist for much of my life. Trust, me I don't fail to see the value of science. Just remember that scientists proved the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

If you think Intelligent Design is a silly theory then I'm sorry for you. I've been fearfully and wonderfully made. While some who believe in ID think Evolution is completely false there are alot of people who believe in both.

While ID can't be proven, Evolution can't even begin to proven. Lightning stimulated proteins??? Again, where did the proteins come from?

The minute I routinely start finding money that I didn't put in my pockets in my pockets, I'll lend more credence to evolution which in my view is 0+0=life.

[littleman]

While ID can't be proven, Evolution can't even begin to proven. Lightning stimulated proteins??? Again, where did the proteins come from?

The minute I routinely start finding money that I didn't put in my pockets in my pockets, I'll lend more credence to evolution which in my view is 0+0=life.

Ridiculous, you fail to see the crux of the problem.

Evolution can be proven through data -- but yes, where it ALL first came from is problem; i.e. the problem of abiogenesis and the big bang. But evolution doesn't propose to answer that, it's merely a mechanism that comes in AFTER life has set in. Believe me, you are missing the problem entirely.

This is also why ID and Evolution can work somewhat hand in hand -- that is, God designed the universe and its laws, initated the big bang, and let evolution work its way. Whether we want to posit a supernatural being in our explanations of the universe is a different matter entirely.

[johno]

Ok, just read the Evolution theorists instead of evolution... ie, those people who strongly oppose ID. I still think my point is clear... Evolution can't begin to work without something else, imo that something else is creation.

[StrikerCW]

While ID can't be proven, Evolution can't even begin to proven. Lightning stimulated proteins??? Again, where did the proteins come from?

What do you mean where did the proteins come from? They were spontaneously formed when the Carbon based gases in the experiment (and theoretically in the primative earth) reacted with either water, ammonium or hydrogen and they formed. Don't ask me how or why, I am not Urey, and I am not Miller. In fact I haven't even taken Organic Chemistry yet. I'm just saying what happened in the experiment.

[littleman]

Ok, just read the Evolution theorists instead of evolution... ie, those people who strongly oppose ID. I still think my point is clear... Evolution can't begin to work without something else, imo that something else is creation.

That is something science is working on, but yes, I do think that creation may be a viable solution as to the problem of abiogenesis. It's just that most evolutionary theorists want naturalistic solutions and that they don't see God as a natural entity. Possibilities abound, and we still have much to research.

[SirManchester]

I fail to see the value of science??? that's harsh... I was 6months away from sitting my GCE's in Biology, Chemisty and Physics (among other things) and wanted to be a marine biologist for much of my life. Trust, me I don't fail to see the value of science. Just remember that scientists proved the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

If you think Intelligent Design is a silly theory then I'm sorry for you. I've been fearfully and wonderfully made. While some who believe in ID think Evolution is completely false there are alot of people who believe in both.

While ID can't be proven, Evolution can't even begin to proven. Lightning stimulated proteins??? Again, where did the proteins come from?

The minute I routinely start finding money that I didn't put in my pockets in my pockets, I'll lend more credence to evolution which in my view is 0+0=life.

Alright, sorry for that comment, i obviously didn't mean to insult you.

Do you believe in Evolution? I mean, Evolution can be proven, and I'm not talking about the origin of life, but evolution of it since, do you believe in that? Because there is no evidence that can argue against it.

[Stud83]

SirManchester, are you a biology or physics major by any chance?

I actually agree mostly with johno's points. People that don't believe in intelligent design believe that life on earth originated... well, out of lifeless matter. And there hasn't been a single experiment proving that that may be the case. In fact, the probability of life originating from lifeless matter is 1/(1 followed by 200 zeros). And the last time I checked the only thing appeared out of lifeless matter was Pinocchio.
As one scientist once said, the probability of life originating byaccident is comparable to the probability of the new dictionary appearing from an explosion in a printing shop. So you either believe in intelligent design or you believe that a book may be created by an explosion in a store with a bunch of newspapers. What is more believable?

[Howard Zinn]

The falsifiability of evolution is precisely why it should be taught in science classes, and why intelligent design/creationism should not. Both ID and creationism are not empirically-based and have no real falsifiable content. The notion of 'falsifiability' as a requisite for being a scientific theory was first brought up by Karl Popper, and although it's been undermined by more advanced arguments, it's still one of the most widely used ideas to judge whether one thing is a theory or not.

Evolution offers many things that are in line with science -- including predictory power. ID does not.

Where ID comes in is in its supposed power in explaining how *everything* in the universe started; which is the big bang. Something can't come out of nothing, so God -- the eternal entity, must exist. Explaining abiogenesis is also one of the most difficult problems that modern science faces. There are plenty of speculative scientific theories working on these two problems.

Result:
Evolution in science classes.
ID in religious classes.


This post almost made my head turn until I figured out ID=intelligent design. I thought you were doing some Freud shiite on us with the Id, ego, and superego, and was thinking, "What the hell is he going on about." LOL. :p :cool:

[StrikerCW]

SirManchester, are you a biology or physics major by any chance?

I actually agree mostly with johno's points. People that don't believe in intelligent design believe that life on earth originated... well, out of lifeless matter. And there hasn't been a single experiment proving that that may be the case. In fact, the probability of life originating from lifeless matter is 1/(1 followed by 200 zeros). And the last time I checked the only thing appeared out of lifeless matter was Pinocchio.
As one scientist once said, the probability of life originating byaccident is comparable to the probability of the new dictionary appearing from an explosion in a printing shop. So you either believe in intelligent design or you believe that a book may be created by an explosion in a store with a bunch of newspapers. What is more believable?
Just asking.. what are the chances that God created the Universe?

[littleman]

I actually agree mostly with johno's points. People that don't believe in intelligent design believe that life on earth originated... well, out of lifeless matter. And there hasn't been a single experiment proving that that may be the case. In fact, the probability of life originating from lifeless matter is 1/(1 followed by 200 zeros). And the last time I checked the only thing appeared out of lifeless matter was Pinocchio.

As one scientist once said, the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the new dictionary appearing from an explosion in a printing shop. So you either believe in intelligent design or you believe that a book may be created by an expolision in a store with a bunch of newspapers. What is more believable?

It's unfair to corner naturalistic believers with this sort of opinion. For one, there are MANY things in science that have taken decades to prove.. for years there was a tussle between whether light was a wave or particle, since it behaved like either when tested as such. Many theories in science have been ridiculed when it first came into public domain; not forgetting Darwin's theory of evolution. Copernicus got the spank from his govt too. It is ridiculous to say that, because at the CURRENT point in time, that we have no scientific theory to fill in the gaps, that the gap must be filled with God.

Also, extraordinary matters come out of extraordinary circumstances. If there is even a remote chance that abiogenesis can occur, then there is reasonable doubt. Also, I don't find your advocation of an intelligent designer ANY MORE PROBABLE than an "unlikely" (to the extent of almost impossible) event. How is an intelligent designer, eternal, and such a more believable concept than abiogenesis? We then boil down to the problem of whether God is feasible, and the debate of God.. bringing us into another hellhole.

And Zinn, sorry about the acronym :D;; I should've specified.