healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:18 pm

kiryan wrote:Evolution relies on randomness, ID relies on order. An argument for ID is an argument for evolution by definition... It is only because there are flaws in evolution theory that ID can exist... it is a theory born from the imperfectness of the theory of evolution.


Nope, it's a theory born from willful ignorance and the Church's need to maintain mystery's in life so that people will keep believing in God.

If there was no evidence that contradicted evolution, and ID was simply a theory that said God created the world such that it would look like evolution occured... we wouldn't be having this discussion and I would agree with you. However there are unsettled arguments and yet academia goes around saying evolution is unconditionally true (despite not having been proven).


1) You haven't presented any of this evidence (I may have missed some, having been in Florida the last few days, but I'm still willing to bet you haven't.)
2) That's not quite what ID says, to my understanding...
3) The word "Theory" automatically means "not unconditionally true."

What the Theory of Evolution DOES mean, is that given ALL evidence Evolution is the theory which best fits that evidence.

ID has no evidence, does nothing but attack imagined "cracks" in the Theory of Evolution, and can not be tested anyway. It just doesn't belong. It's no more valid than saying "We can't find the missing link between chimpanzees and humans, so I think our entire fossil record is from meteorites that slammed into the earth and left behind the remains of creatures from another planet that were similar to ours."

Just as scientifically valid as ID. Should we teach my "Meteorite Theory" in science class, Kiryan?

and you are right, it is hard to have any kind of discussion about evolution when 20% of America insists that evolution is unconditionally true and discount in entirety the perspective of the other 80% labeling it as purely religious.


Because it is purely religious. You have no evidence that "God Did It" because there can be no evidence that God did it. Your theory is unprovable, untestable, and by your own admission NOT SCIENCE. It IS religion.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:26 pm

1) yea yea yea, i'll get to it.

2) what is the basis of your understanding of ID? have you read any books? or do you get your science from the daily show?

3) yes i know what theory means, unfortunately the professors teaching evolution "THEORY" do not. Its "settled" science, isn't proven but accepted as law, much like climate change.

ID has evidence as I mentioned. Cracks in evolution theory are arguments for ID. I would consider covering your meteorite theory if 40% of American's believed it was true. 80% of Americans believe ID in some form is true.

it is not purely religious no matter how much you want it to be so you can discredit it. ID scientists do not stand on a soap box with a bible and says this is the proof of ID. They make scientific arguments to support it... or at least pseudoscientific arguments and not religious ones.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:57 pm

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -tube.html

btw this is the most convincing argument to date that I've seen about evolution... they created RNA that would replicate and it demonstrated that the simple RNA when replicating did undergo mutations that were also replicatable.

I'm not sure if this is the same research I read about years ago... started in the 70s and deals with a similar mechanism... there have as I recall achieved 30k generations in a week... since the 70s... but has never "evolved" into anything significantly different.

Both of these are interesting and give some evidence that evolution could've existed... but both started with DIRECTED creation of a self replicating basic unit... and both have failed to evolve into anything more significant. I've yet to see the study where a vat of base elements assemble a self replicating protein. or where one species transforms into a separate species...

What if anything they proved here... is that a intelligent force can "create life". That not withstanding, this is one of my favorite arguments for the possibility of evolution... yet recognizing a fundamental flaw... micro evolution (changes in a species) vs macro evolution changes into a new speices... and also one of my favorite illustrations in support of ID... failure to evolve beyond the initial, directed creation.

==this is not my evidence, just a post I've been meaning to make for a while letting you know I actually do know the arguments on both sides... and plus I think this research is just plain cool.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Kifle » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:33 am

kiryan wrote:
Ragorn wrote:ID focuses heavily on counter-claims against the study of evolution, yes. The debate doesn't center on whether Intelligent Design is correct, it focuses on exposing small cracks in the fossil record in an attempt to cast doubt on evolution as a macro theory. ID proponents like to point out a couple difficult evolutionary questions, present the idea that evolution must be a flawed theory, and then propose intelligent design as a possible alternative. No work goes into shoring up ID as a workable theory... it's always just "your theory is wrong, maybe you should consider ours." Unfortunately, the lack of observational evidence puts it right alongside any other arbitrary proposition in terms of scientific rigor. If we should discuss the tenets of ID in science class, then we should also discuss the theory that the Earth sits on the back of a giant turtle. Both theories have exactly the same amount of scientific credibility.


Evolution relies on randomness, ID relies on order. An argument for ID is an argument for evolution by definition... It is only because there are flaws in evolution theory that ID can exist... it is a theory born from the imperfectness of the theory of evolution.

If there was no evidence that contradicted evolution, and ID was simply a theory that said God created the world such that it would look like evolution occured... we wouldn't be having this discussion and I would agree with you. However there are unsettled arguments and yet academia goes around saying evolution is unconditionally true (despite not having been proven).

and you are right, it is hard to have any kind of discussion about evolution when 20% of America insists that evolution is unconditionally true and discount in entirety the perspective of the other 80% labeling it as purely religious.


Kiryan, ID is not a scientific theory. I don't see how you keep wanting to push the discussion further. Science class is for scientific theories. Numerology and astrology have theories that compete with scientific theories as well, but we don't bring them up in science class. Why? Because they aren't science.

In church, do you read out of the Jehovah's Witness bible? Because they have a competing religious theory. How often do you carefully examine Buddhism and rebirth? Hinduism and reincarnation? Taoism and atheism? These are all competing theories; however, you choose only to voice your own within your institution. In the education system, subjects are compartmentalized. Yes, as Teflor pointed out, there is overlap in disciplines, but none are taught explicitly in classes which don't carry the same name -- there is simply reinforcement of other disciplines. Now, due to compartmentalization in the institution of public education, either you break it down entirely or you leave it be. Either you teach ID in science classes, Spanish grammar in English classes, baking in mathematics, or you allow each specialization their time to education their specialization. You waste quality time by allowing things like baking in mathematics or ID into biology.

Taken further, if we were to allow non scientific theories into science class, real science would hardly ever be taught, and people would leave more confused than they came in. Could you imagine having to enter into a physics discussion while some jackass wanted to talk about Harry Potter and flying broomsticks competing against Newton? If some idiotic Wiccans forced witchcraft theory into biology in that potions and spells can disturb biological make-up, chemical levels in the brain, and induce "love" in others? These are all competing theories, so why not push for them all? Why just ID?

And that is where I will leave this discussion. I can only say one thing in different ways so many times before I realize I'm banging my head against the keyboard in complete frustration. But, answer me this, why ID and no other "observational" theory with no testing? Why not witchcraft in biology, astrology in physics, alchemy in chemistry? Why do you just champion for ID rather than any other wacko theory out there? If you give credibility to one theory, you must give it to all.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:44 am

because its defense and promotion puts on the trappings of science even if it is technically not a scientific theory and it directly competes with a scientific theory.

because 80% of people believe in it. To fail to address it is irresponsible and irrational. It should be addressed simply because of that fact.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:13 am

I disagree with you both on different things.

Kiryan, ID is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical theory. It is equivalent in scientific stature to the theory that existence was random, in terms of evidence or experiments possible to provide evidence for that theory.

Ragorn, belief in something that isn't true can excite creativity and curiosity and lead to great advances in science, the same way that people investigated how to create gold with lesser valuable substances with zero evidence that it was possible. The day science stops chasing evidence-less beliefs is the day we've turned science over to stupid robots that lack the living intelligence that causes us to try to change not only our existence but ourselves.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:00 am

kiryan wrote:Cracks in evolution theory are arguments for ID.


No, they are not. They are room for another theory, but ID doesn't even technically qualify as a theory since it is not testable.

I would consider covering your meteorite theory if 40% of American's believed it was true. 80% of Americans believe ID in some form is true.


What percentage of Americans are scientologists? I guess we just switch it with aliens. You really want "science" to be taught by what is most popular? Really fucking think about that. Seriously, honestly think about it. You want science to be taught based on what people believe.

Things people have believed BEFORE SCIENCE:

1) Health is controlled by four "humours" and bloodletting helps you heal by balancing those out
2) Sneezes are caused by a demon trying to possess you
3) The universe rotates around the earth
4) There were only four elements
5) There were five elements (phlogiston being the fifth)

I could go on with a bit more help from Google. The point being: People believed lots of stupid shit that wasn't true, and science's primary role in advancing our society this far is to DISPEL THOSE BELIEFS.

You want science to teach something that is not science, just because it is a popular belief.

That is actually counter to the role of science in our society. You want to drag us backwards.

it is not purely religious no matter how much you want it to be so you can discredit it. ID scientists do not stand on a soap box with a bible and says this is the proof of ID. They make scientific arguments to support it... or at least pseudoscientific arguments and not religious ones.


ROFL. So Christians make pseudoscientific arguments, but it's not religious? Bullshit. There is no scientific basis for it. Even if they try to find pseudoscientific arguments for it, they are arguing for ID because they BELIEVE in it. Because it is their religion. Show me some non-Christian scientists backing ID and you can claim it's not religious.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:12 pm

Scientific arguments are made from measurable evidence. The arguments made by ID proponents don't really have measurable evidence that speaks directly to support the theory. While arguments made by ID proponents may be logical, the ones I have see are neither scientific nor directly supportive of the theory - rather, any arguments I've seen that have measurable evidence have been used to refute arguments presented against ID, but never given in direct support of the theory.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:05 pm

kiryan wrote:Evolution relies on randomness, ID relies on order. An argument for ID is an argument for evolution by definition... It is only because there are flaws in evolution theory that ID can exist... it is a theory born from the imperfectness of the theory of evolution.

I don't understand this statement at all. An argument for ID is an argument against the Theory of Evolution by definition, not for it. Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution are mutually exclusive, because they attempt to explain the origin of life in contradictory ways. Remember that evolution and adaptation are not the same thing. Intelligent Design uses an intelligent creator to explain the origin of life, and latches on to species adaptation to explain the progression of the fossil record... but that's not the same thing as saying that ID argues for evolution.

If there was no evidence that contradicted evolution, and ID was simply a theory that said God created the world such that it would look like evolution occured... we wouldn't be having this discussion and I would agree with you. However there are unsettled arguments and yet academia goes around saying evolution is unconditionally true (despite not having been proven).

Nobody goes around saying that anything in science is unconditionally true. That's the point of the scientific method. Observations are made and theories are proposed, and they are held until evidence is found that proves them to be false.

When evidence is uncovered that "contradicts evolution," the theory is updated to encompass the new information. The Theory of Evolution (capital T, capital E) in use today is not taken verbatim from Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species. That was the foundation, upon which decades of research have been piled. Fossils are discovered, their place in the fossil record is researched, and the picture becomes clearer. There are outstanding questions, new evidence is introduced constantly, and individual fossil records are challenged and reclassified all the time. However, there is no no evidence that contradicts the entire Theory of Evolution wholesale. There just isn't.

If there is? Share it. Usually when creationists are asked for evidence, they use one of four flawed arguments as "proof" that the whole theory is wrong:

1. Asking a question we can't answer yet (how did the eyeball evolve?)
2. Offering their opinion of one data point in the fossil record (I don't believe that homo erectus looks like homo sapiens)
3. Pointing out incorrect classifications (stegosaurus) or past hoaxes (Piltdown Man)
4. Making wild, general, uninformed claims (the missing link has never been found!!) or expressing distrust in "science" or "scientists" wholesale

None of these are evidence against the Theory of Evolution. Claiming that evolution is wrong because we don't know how the eyeball evolved is like claiming you don't believe in Physics because we haven't found the Higgs-Boson.
Last edited by Ragorn on Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:10 pm

kiryan wrote:because 80% of people believe in it.

Also, this is blatantly untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution

There is a wide variety of statistical studies in that link. To say that "80% of people believe in creationism" is pushing the high side of the most extreme surveys conducted. I'd say it's probably closer to 40%.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:16 am

Bit of truthful sarcasm here:

no, science isn't what is popular unless it's a bullshit 'consensus' about a specific: fully man-made global warming that will be really bad for humanity somehow.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:43 pm

And as I say in every GW thread, whether or not you agree with the bullshit politics on either side, the global climate data unquestioningly support the idea that global temperatures are rising unnaturally due to man-made CO2 emissions.

When you focus the conversation on the science and not the politics, there isn't much of a debate.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:45 pm

Ragorn wrote:the global climate data unquestioningly support the idea that global temperatures are rising unnaturally due to man-made CO2 emissions.

No, it doesn't. There is no evidence for causation.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:52 pm

or against.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:58 pm

No evidence for causation of what... that CO2 traps solar energy as heat?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:51 pm

Ragorn wrote:No evidence for causation of what... that CO2 traps solar energy as heat?

Causation where average atmospheric CO2 levels positively affect the average global low-atmospheric temperature to account for a significant proportion of detected temperature change to the same.

Furthermore, that it will cause significant preventable harm that justifies taking harmful measures to stop it.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Vigis » Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:40 am

New evidence was relased today that has finally closed the debate between Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution.

Kiryan, I apologize for disagreeing before - you were correct the entire time!

Here is the evidence:

"The Theory of Evolution is just alist of animals that Chuck Norris decided to let live."
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:08 pm

HA - nice one.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:46 pm

Yeah, I'll agree with that :D
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:02 pm

Ragorn wrote:
kiryan wrote:because 80% of people believe in it.

Also, this is blatantly untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution

There is a wide variety of statistical studies in that link. To say that "80% of people believe in creationism" is pushing the high side of the most extreme surveys conducted. I'd say it's probably closer to 40%.


Huh? did you read the article?

According to a 2007 Gallup poll, ... Only 14% believed that "humans being have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process"

80% believe in ID of some sort... whether its the "young earth" ID or whether evolution was directed by a force (like chuck norris).
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:06 pm

kiryan wrote:
Ragorn wrote:
kiryan wrote:because 80% of people believe in it.

Also, this is blatantly untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution

There is a wide variety of statistical studies in that link. To say that "80% of people believe in creationism" is pushing the high side of the most extreme surveys conducted. I'd say it's probably closer to 40%.


Huh? did you read the article?

According to a 2007 Gallup poll, ... Only 14% believed that "humans being have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process"

80% believe in ID of some sort... whether its the "young earth" ID or whether evolution was directed by a force (like chuck norris).


Kiryan: When you state that 14% of people believe in A, it does NOT mean that 86% of people believe in B. This is basic fucking logic. This is why it's impossible to have any kind of discussion with you. This is why people need to be taught actual fucking science, not your personal misguided beliefs.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:17 pm

Sarvis did you read the wikipedia article...

Did you look at the polls I originally cited?

I can't help you if you can't be bothered to read the articles. I thought that quoting that one sentence out of the article made the point I wanted. Did Ragorn read the article? How does 14% believing in evolution not jive with the poll I posted by Gallup indicating 80% of people believe in ID... He called my statements a "blantant lie" so I checked his data.

The gallup poll breaks it down as did I in my first posts on the subject... the wikipedia article breaks it down too. But since you can't actually be bothered to look at anything and simply attack it based on your personal beliefs despite citations... here you go from teh article ragorn posted..

According to a 2007 Gallup poll,[125] about 43% of American believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in a 2006 Gallup poll.[126] Only 14% believed that "humans being have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process", despite 49% of respondents indicating they believed in evolution.[125] Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism.[126] A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[127]
Edward Larson and Larry Witham in 1998 published the results of a survey of the members of the US National Academy of Science showing that 93% of the respondents did not believe in a personal God.[128]

43% believe God created humans < 10k years ago, this is ID theory of "young earth"
49% believe in evolution
only 14% of those who believe in evolution... believe God had no part. ID theory of directed evolution.

No matter how you do the math, its way over 50% and probably in the ball park of 80%.

Please shift your brain out of stupid.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:53 pm

Confirmed: Sarvis is running his mouth without having any facts in hand. Technically Kiryan too.

"Responses to this question found that 43% of Americans choose the alternative closest to the creationist perspective, that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." A substantial 38% say human beings evolved, but with God guiding the process. Another 14% favored an interpretation of evolution arguing that God had no part in the process"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majori ... ution.aspx
As cited by the wikipedia article.
Last edited by Teflor Lyorian on Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:55 pm

kiryan wrote:attack it based on your personal beliefs despite citations...
No matter how you do the math, its way over 50% and probably in the ball park of 80%.


And once again, argument ad populum is a fallacy. I don't fucking care if 3,000% of people believe the sky is hot pink, it's not true and it shouldn't be taught in science class.

Please shift your brain out of stupid.


:roll:
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:00 pm

kiryan wrote:Huh? did you read the article?

According to a 2007 Gallup poll, ... Only 14% believed that "humans being have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process"

80% believe in ID of some sort... whether its the "young earth" ID or whether evolution was directed by a force (like chuck norris).

I did, actually. In one of the dozens of polls listed in the article, only 14% believed that thing you typed up above. In many, many, many other polls, the results were significantly more varied. You, of course, selected the most favorable poll from the article to quote, and I, of course, called you out on it.

Also, as teflor said, science is not a democratic or majority-opinion process. Science teaches what is observable, not what is believed. Kindergarden Science does not teach the Theory of Santa Claus, even though it is a theory embraced by a significant percentage of Christian children at that grade level.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:08 pm

Teflor, how do you figure I'm running without the facts. I quoted an entire paragraph it straight off wikipedia's article. I have repeatedly said roughly 80% believe in a form of ID and further clarify it by occiasionally saying that even with gross mistakes its still over 50%. I think I've been very conservative in my declarations.

Sarvis, let me summarize today's events.

Ragorn posted that my 80% figure was a blatant lie and cited an article

I read his article, posted a rebuttal from his article that indicated the 80% figure was at least in the ballpark.

You responded without looking at the article by saying I'm stupid 14% believing in evolution does not mean the rest believe in ID.

I responded by chastising you for not reading the article and posted the entire paragraph from which the quote was taken where it does indicate that somewhere around 80% believe in some form of ID vs the 14% who believe in strict non ID evolution.

You respond by saying well its all a bullshit logical fallacy anyway.

Can I take that to be your concession that you posted out of your ass?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:06 pm

kiryan wrote:I read his article, posted a rebuttal from his article that indicated the 80% figure was at least in the ballpark.


No, you posted this idiotic statement:

"According to a 2007 Gallup poll, ... Only 14% believed that "humans being have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process"

80% believe in ID of some sort... whether its the "young earth" ID or whether evolution was directed by a force (like chuck norris)."

Sorry if I called you out on the stupid thing you said, rather than what you meant or had said earlier.

Especially since it's stupid, in support of something even more stupid, and not even GOOD support of the stupid thing in the first place.

In other words: Shut up until you have something worth saying.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Look, I already substantiated the 80% figure in this thread at some point... with a gallup poll and its break down.

Ragorn posts a rebuttal with no more support other than a claim that my 80% figure is "blatantly" false.

I point out from his own fucking citation that the article claims that only 14% of people believe in evolution.

Given my previous support, it was not necessary for me to make another half page post going over it again when essentially its the exact same data. Ragorn should be rebutting my rebuttal by showing me where in the article he cited it says that the 80% figure is in accurate.

admit that you criticized my post without having actually read the article Ragorn posted... and probably didn't even read the original article I cited with the gallup poll data. Additionally, you haven't criticized Ragorn's position one bit despite the fact he didn't support it at all. Instead you attack what you wrongfully perceive to be a flaw in my rebuttal.

You are wrong on this point and you should admit it. You argued my rebuttal was false without even looking at anything.

I have no idea where Ragorn is on this... I'd love to know how he supports his claim with that article.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:38 pm

kiryan wrote:Look, I already substantiated the 80% figure in this thread at some point... with a gallup poll and its break down.

Ragorn posts a rebuttal with no more support other than a claim that my 80% figure is "blatantly" false.

I point out from his own fucking citation that the article claims that only 14% of people believe in evolution.

Given my previous support, it was not necessary for me to make another half page post going over it again when essentially its the exact same data.


It wasn't necessary for you to say anything at all, let alone to state that your 80% figure was correct because only 14% believe in evolution with no guiding force. You don't get that I'm saying this specific statement was stupid, do you? You want to make this about whether or not I read an article, which doesn't fucking matter. It matters even less than how many people believe in evolution, in fact!



admit that you criticized my post without having actually read the article Ragorn posted...


Yes, and I stand by that criticism. You stated 80% believe in ID because 14% believe there was no guiding force. I don't care what articles you've posted, this was a stupid statement and all to indicative of how you think all the time.

Additionally, you haven't criticized Ragorn's position one bit


That's because Ragorn doesn't piss me off with rampant stupidity every five seconds.

You are wrong on this point and you should admit it. You argued my rebuttal was false without even looking at anything.


You're wrong. I argued your rebuttal was false after looking at your rebuttal. Also, I'm arguing that it doesn't matter anyway so why the fuck are you wasting our time arguing about what percentage of people believe in ID? Or arguing about how you argued what percentage of people believe in ID?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:08 pm

kiryan wrote:Teflor, how do you figure I'm running without the facts. I quoted an entire paragraph it straight off wikipedia's article. I have repeatedly said roughly 80% believe in a form of ID and further clarify it by occiasionally saying that even with gross mistakes its still over 50%. I think I've been very conservative in my declarations.

Sarvis, let me summarize today's events.

Ragorn posted that my 80% figure was a blatant lie and cited an article

I read his article, posted a rebuttal from his article that indicated the 80% figure was at least in the ballpark.

You responded without looking at the article by saying I'm stupid 14% believing in evolution does not mean the rest believe in ID.

I responded by chastising you for not reading the article and posted the entire paragraph from which the quote was taken where it does indicate that somewhere around 80% believe in some form of ID vs the 14% who believe in strict non ID evolution.

You respond by saying well its all a bullshit logical fallacy anyway.

Can I take that to be your concession that you posted out of your ass?


Eh, I say you are running without the facts because you should have said 81%
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:59 pm

ic, well 80% is not a figure I'm hanging my hat on... it could be 81% or 75%... but its obviously very high and is clearly a majority of Americans. I don't think I've intimated that the 80% figure is exact, I believe I have consistently using words like roughly 80%.

sarvis,

I get that you are saying that this specific statement is stupid. 14% believing does not mean 86% don't believe. when you nitpick to this degree sure you can prove virtually any statement out of context is false. The reality is that this 14% statistic lends credence to my claim that the number is roughly 80%... and does accurately reflect the data in the citation.

I'm arguing about this point, because Ragorn called into question the data that 80% of Americans believe either in "young earth" ID or directed evolution ID. Why shouldn't I argue this apparently disputed fact.

Let me ask you directly, do you agree that 80% of American's believe in ID?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:24 pm

Very interesting research in evolution.

Scientists Capture Evolution in the Lab

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/scient ... 168&page=1

The title might be exaggerated... Its basically as far as I can tell... still looking at micro evolution (changes within a species), but it supposes itself to shed light on the mechanisms of that change... rather than be "random" and survival of the fittest there are actually more selective mechanisms (although they haven't been able to shed much light on that mechanism).
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:11 pm

Several issues come to mind. First, if the hybridized species doesn't last, then it's not really evidence of anything other than mutation. Second, is the hybridized mutation capable of producing offspring with either of the previous species? Third, were the two species that it is a hybrid of normally capable of reproducing together?

Science, bitches, it's fascinating.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:54 pm

yea the implied claims I think are overstated...

however its the first time I've seen it suggested with scientific backing that evolution is not a random process with survival / birth rate determining the winners. Assuming its organism directed through some sort of biochecmical process, its quite an interesting evolution of micro evolution.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:35 pm

Macroevolution is a random process with survival determining the winners.

Microevolution and adaptation are processes which are directed by biochemistry. Adaptation occurs when an organism (or a small community of organisms) changes its physiology to better tolerate its environment. Macroevolution is the measure of change in an entire species, as individuals adapt new traits and it affects their rate of survival and reproduction.

Example:

When the high canopy of a tropical forest is removed, the smaller plants that make up the underbrush are exposed to more sunlight and rain than they were before. Wide leaves may become damaged by the increased exposure, making wide leaves an undesireable trait. One small growth of ferns is particularly affected, and all of its wide-leaved limbs die off from the impact of the rain, leaving only narrow-leaved limbs. As new limbs grow, the wide leaves die and the narrow leaves remain. Eventually, the plant stops growing wide-leaved limbs at all. Within one generation, that fern has made an adaptation to its new environment. This is microevolution, and we see this all the time.

Six feet away is another fern that, for whatever reason, doesn't adapt. Its limbs continue to get killed off by heavy rain exposure. The plant evenutally dies because it can't produce enough oxygen to survive.

Over time, all of the ferns in the forest either die or find new ways to tolerate the environment. One fern evolves slightly narrower leaves. Another fern survives by not growing its limbs quite so high off the ground, and is shielded from the rain by taller plants. A third fern thickens its cell walls, making it slightly less vulnerable to the exposure. Over the centuries, the environment continues to change and these three ferns reproduce and continue to adapt. A thousand years later, they're distinct enough from each other that they can be classified as three different subspecies of ferns. And in that time, all the specimens that didn't adapt have died off. The original fern is now extinct, and in its place are three new subspecies.

That's macroevolution.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:37 pm

I agree for the most part, did something I say demonstrate otherwise?
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:47 pm

When you said it's "the first time I've seen it suggested with scientific backing that evolution is not a random process with survival" it wasn't clear if you were talking about macro or microevolution.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:22 am

Oh then maybe we don't agree on that point. I've never read anything that suggested a "directed" evolutionary approach as this article is suggesting.

As I understand the article, it is suggesting that the organism is causing mutations that are beneficial (somehow). I've never heard any suggestion that any form of evolution is anything other than purely random DNA mutations that result in a benefit that improves survivability which then leads to dominance in the population.

You're saying that micro evolution already included a non random mutation principle? I mean I understand the whole if a 1" beak is good then a 2" beak is better, but natural selection says this occurs because the smaller beaked ones die off and that the original underlying cause of the difference in size of beaks was a random mutation.

This article I believe is saying that because a 1" beak is good, something happened biologically in the organism to encourage the progeny to have more and different large beak mutations rather than simply out breeding their smaller beaked friends.. directed mutations. Its fundamentally different if you ask me yet not mutually exclusive to the principle of survival of the fittest.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Ragorn » Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:16 pm

kiryan wrote:As I understand the article, it is suggesting that the organism is causing mutations that are beneficial (somehow). I've never heard any suggestion that any form of evolution is anything other than purely random DNA mutations that result in a benefit that improves survivability which then leads to dominance in the population.

You're saying that micro evolution already included a non random mutation principle? I mean I understand the whole if a 1" beak is good then a 2" beak is better, but natural selection says this occurs because the smaller beaked ones die off and that the original underlying cause of the difference in size of beaks was a random mutation.

Be aware that "adaptation" and "natural selection" are related but separate terms. Natural selection is what you described above... individual organisms that display beneficial mutations survive to pass those mutations on, and the population changes as a result. Adaptation is what an organism does within its lifetime to increase its odds of survival and reproduction. Adapatations are generally minor and more subtle than random mutations... random mutation could produce a clover with four leaves instead of three, for example. An example of adaptation is, if you moved to Antarctica, your body's metabolism would slow down slightly and you would store more body fat in an attempt to retain heat.

When you lift weights, the fact that your body adds muscle mass is actually adaptation at work. Your body senses the need for more muscle, so it starts creating more muscle cells. If you stay healthy, work out, and exercise regularly, then your children will be genetically disposed to being healthier as well. Simply put, fat people have fat kids. Part of the reason is because fat people tend to cram their kids full of McDonalds, but it's also partly genetic. Do you know anybody who eats well and exercises, but still can't quite seem to shimmy into a size 6 or a 32" waist? Chances are, they were passed something in their genes that makes their body believe that it's preferable to retain body fat.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: healthcare law will cost 800,000 jobs.

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:04 pm

Ragorn wrote:
kiryan wrote:As I understand the article, it is suggesting that the organism is causing mutations that are beneficial (somehow). I've never heard any suggestion that any form of evolution is anything other than purely random DNA mutations that result in a benefit that improves survivability which then leads to dominance in the population.

You're saying that micro evolution already included a non random mutation principle? I mean I understand the whole if a 1" beak is good then a 2" beak is better, but natural selection says this occurs because the smaller beaked ones die off and that the original underlying cause of the difference in size of beaks was a random mutation.

Be aware that "adaptation" and "natural selection" are related but separate terms. Natural selection is what you described above... individual organisms that display beneficial mutations survive to pass those mutations on, and the population changes as a result. Adaptation is what an organism does within its lifetime to increase its odds of survival and reproduction. Adapatations are generally minor and more subtle than random mutations... random mutation could produce a clover with four leaves instead of three, for example. An example of adaptation is, if you moved to Antarctica, your body's metabolism would slow down slightly and you would store more body fat in an attempt to retain heat.

When you lift weights, the fact that your body adds muscle mass is actually adaptation at work. Your body senses the need for more muscle, so it starts creating more muscle cells. If you stay healthy, work out, and exercise regularly, then your children will be genetically disposed to being healthier as well. Simply put, fat people have fat kids. Part of the reason is because fat people tend to cram their kids full of McDonalds, but it's also partly genetic. Do you know anybody who eats well and exercises, but still can't quite seem to shimmy into a size 6 or a 32" waist? Chances are, they were passed something in their genes that makes their body believe that it's preferable to retain body fat.

Humans are a terrible example or comparison for anything related to evolution. Especially because we're able to consciously and specifically manipulate our genetics (currently illegal, but the possibility is there).

Natural evolution has to be studied in nature. We are now about as natural as the preservatives that course through our veins from the Cheetos we ate last week.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest