onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
June 10th, 2013 at 8:01:57 PM permalink
I think people in society are lacking compassion and other values. Compassion certainly exists and has a value to society which is going to be clear when it's gone. Society needs these things to continue on and selfishness will destroy it. Maybe someone needs to write an Atheist bible or something to reinstill the importance of what was GIVEN to us and we have no right to destroy our country and sell it out. We need just, fair laws for all at least. If we don't even care passing them that they're not, we're screwed. Law wise, they're running up the score with how one-sided these laws have become. It's not Monopoly, it's life and life in America is starting to become a bad place to live. If we all remain tolerant and not just expect tolerance for our views, all people religious and atheist can live happily.

"United we stand, divided we fall".

Science is a liar, sometimes. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBxJiXOl-Xw
I am a robot.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
June 11th, 2013 at 10:28:33 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Leave it to media-driven science to think that you can look at one input (CO2) in a complex system (earth) and draw a simple conclusion. Any reasonably intelligent person would know that tree-rings and fossils cannot possibly be compared to give a temperature reading accurate enough to compare with daily readings of a modern thermometer and draw a conclusion. And a person with common sense will remember that they saw many early or late springs all their life. Yet it happens now and 47% of the population swallows the idea that is is "climate change" causing a hurricane, tornado, or wildfire. They believe it as they see the teasers for the news during commercials in "Dancing With the Stars" or the like.

40 years ago it was a new ice age on the way. 30 years ago we would have run out of oil by now. 15 years ago it was global warming. By 2020 it will be something else.



Please try to understand the science before you try to group Climate Change in with the Romney 47%. Plenty of Republicans believe in climate change (over half now, according to a April 2013 poll), and it's just another alienating statement by a GOP supporter (you) that keeps people from voting for them. It's also kind of insulting to group Romney's 47% to people who watch only news teasers.

Actually, tree ring data, ice-core data, fossils, etc can be used to determine climactic variables including temperature.

It is polarizing comments like these that abound from the GOP that alienates any possible chance for a Dem to switch sides. And yes, climate change can lead to more (or less) hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires. It's absolutely stupid however to point at one tornado and call that "climate change". Climate change can refer to regional trends, not individual events.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 11th, 2013 at 10:47:24 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

Please try to understand the science before you try to group Climate Change in with the Romney 47%. Plenty of Republicans believe in climate change (over half now, according to a April 2013 poll), and it's just another alienating statement by a GOP supporter (you) that keeps people from voting for them. It's also kind of insulting to group Romney's 47% to people who watch only news teasers.



Actually I find those who believe in climate change to be the ones who get their info from said teasers before they get back to "Dancing with the Stars." People who are deniers can usually give reasons while supporters quickly say, "shut up and listen to the scientists."

Quote:

Actually, tree ring data, ice-core data, fossils, etc can be used to determine climactic variables including temperature.



You cannot convince me that looking at tree rings or ice cores will give you much more than a general idea and certainly not to within 1-2 degrees C, which means not accurate enough to compare within that range.

Quote:

It is polarizing comments like these that abound from the GOP that alienates any possible chance for a Dem to switch sides. And yes, climate change can lead to more (or less) hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires. It's absolutely stupid however to point at one tornado and call that "climate change". Climate change can refer to regional trends, not individual events.



The dems make at least as many polarizing comments. Obama himself blamed global warming for Texas wildfires in 2008 and who was the dem who ran to the floor to blame the OK tornadoes on it? What the dems have going for them since 2008 is the Obama cult of personality. Even with all of this he did worse in 2012 than 2008. Given all of that there is no reason for the GOP to flip-flop to meet the latest trends, leave that for Dems.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
June 11th, 2013 at 11:36:52 AM permalink
I'm pinning the stupid comments on the singular tornado or hurricane on the Dems and the climate believers. I'm with you on that. It just makes me shake my head in disdain when I hear that because it's a bunch of unscientific BS.

That said, most scientists believe in what they are doing. We should be applauding the fact that these kids went to school, got for and paid for a good education, and are now using their expertise to try and study what they were trained to do, not shed disdain on them because you think they are wrong. These scientists are not part of the 47%. Their articles are peer reviewed by other scientists before they are published and are subject to the same rigor that other scientists are. A few scientists will skew their results to keep their jobs or to get more grant money, but you know what, that happens in every industry, where there are few unscrupulous people who will publish bad studies and falsify data to get more money.

Tree rings, ice core data, etc were used long before the current climate change analysis to show changes in temperature, and yep, theoretically to within 1 to 2 degrees C. You have to combine all of the data together to get there, but they get there. This data is called "proxy data" as they are not thermometers but are strongly related to temperature data. These studies started back in the 50s long before we thought we were ruining our climate.

Why can't both sides of the aisle agree that climate change is probably real but have very different approaches as to what to do about it. The GOP can say, yes, it probably is real but we believe we can mitigate the effects by doing X, Y, and Z which differ from the Dems approach to doing A, B, and C.

When the GOP advance and anti-abortion agenda, intelligent design and diss climate change, it just turns off educated and progressive voters who believe that they know better. I would support a school system that teaches evolution ALONGSIDE creationism (from all religions). I would support an educated argument over climate change. I would support a strong anti-abortion message without challenging Roe v. Wade.

(My strong anti-abortion message to my daughter: if you get pregnant before you're 18, you're having the baby, we're going to kill you, and raise the grandchild ourselves).
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 11th, 2013 at 12:33:48 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo



That said, most scientists believe in what they are doing. We should be applauding the fact that these kids went to school, got for and paid for a good education, and are now using their expertise to try and study what they were trained to do, not shed disdain on them because you think they are wrong. These scientists are not part of the 47%. Their articles are peer reviewed by other scientists before they are published and are subject to the same rigor that other scientists are. A few scientists will skew their results to keep their jobs or to get more grant money, but you know what, that happens in every industry, where there are few unscrupulous people who will publish bad studies and falsify data to get more money.



They can "believe in what they are doing" all they want it still does not excuse the alarmism. It does not excuse a scientist calling for more regs and taxes on a maybe. The fact that they have changed the name to "climate change" shows how weak the evidence is. To think we can keep a stable climate over time on a planet with a history of change is the height of arrogance.

Quote:

Tree rings, ice core data, etc were used long before the current climate change analysis to show changes in temperature, and yep, theoretically to within 1 to 2 degrees C. You have to combine all of the data together to get there, but they get there. This data is called "proxy data" as they are not thermometers but are strongly related to temperature data. These studies started back in the 50s long before we thought we were ruining our climate.



Still this leaves lots of room for error when you need to be precise.

Quote:

Why can't both sides of the aisle agree that climate change is probably real but have very different approaches as to what to do about it. The GOP can say, yes, it probably is real but we believe we can mitigate the effects by doing X, Y, and Z which differ from the Dems approach to doing A, B, and C.



Because the solutions proposed by the left have the very real possibility of destroying our way of living and curtail freedom on a "maybe.0

[Q/]When the GOP advance and anti-abortion agenda, intelligent design and diss climate change, it just turns off educated and progressive voters who believe that they know better. I would support a school system that teaches evolution ALONGSIDE creationism (from all religions). I would support an educated argument over climate change. I would support a strong anti-abortion message without challenging Roe v. Wade.



Teaching intelligent design alongside is all most are asking. As to roe v wade for every person turned off by the GOP another is turned off by the dem pro-abortion stance of demanding free abortion on demand and their defense of Planned Parenthood to the bitter end. Want your 14 year old to be able to get an abortion without you knowing? Vote Democrat!
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Face
Administrator
Face
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
June 11th, 2013 at 2:06:34 PM permalink
Great post, boymimbo.

I understand AZ’s contempt, but surely you, AZ, must understand that all those who believe in X aren’t the fringe nutbags the media paints them to be.

I subscribe to the belief of man made climate change. I think anyone who thinks we have no effect, at best, has their head in the sand. It’s just not possible to have the industries and agricultures we’ve had for the last 100 years and not have an effect. But even holding these beliefs, that doesn’t make me anti-oil, anti-coal, hyper pro-electric, anti-industry, or any of the other things associated with the extreme. I just think, hey, we should minimize our damage and prepare for the future. Even if the climate stuff is wrong, the age of fossil fuels is going to end. We might as well begin searching for alternatives now. In other words, I don’t hold all the partisan beliefs just because I believe in one thing they do.

The abortion thing is just stupid. I suppose I’m one of the freaks that will always be passionately pro-choice yet always be as fiercely anti-abortion. Toss this in with drugs and guns as an issue that needs addressed and all proposals are ass backwards, focusing on the end result as opposed to the root cause. As such, anyone who proposes the hyped mass abortion on demand is excluded from my support. Anyone who proposes total banning of abortions likewise. Clowns to the left, jokers to the right.

And please see the “No God” thread. MathE with a stamp of approval from me, the resident atheist, and FrG, the resident Man of God, perfectly illustrates why Creationism has no place in the schools.

This page alone completely demonstrates why I have never, and expect to never, vote in an election. Both parties are bat-shit. I can only hope the severe rift between them somehow ends up in MAD and we can start over with something a little more realistic and sensible.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 11th, 2013 at 2:48:33 PM permalink
Quote: Face

Great post, boymimbo.

I understand AZ’s contempt, but surely you, AZ, must understand that all those who believe in X aren’t the fringe nutbags the media paints them to be.

I subscribe to the belief of man made climate change. I think anyone who thinks we have no effect, at best, has their head in the sand. It’s just not possible to have the industries and agricultures we’ve had for the last 100 years and not have an effect. But even holding these beliefs, that doesn’t make me anti-oil, anti-coal, hyper pro-electric, anti-industry, or any of the other things associated with the extreme. I just think, hey, we should minimize our damage and prepare for the future. Even if the climate stuff is wrong, the age of fossil fuels is going to end. We might as well begin searching for alternatives now. In other words, I don’t hold all the partisan beliefs just because I believe in one thing they do.



Some are the fringe nutbags, some most certainly are. And when you look at some of the claims and commercials they put out, well I cannot take them serious at all. As to having an effect, I doubt any effect we have is big enough to overcome what the sun does, let alone natural fluctuations. As fossil fuels run out, other sources will be found. We have 200 years or more left so no need to rush. What we do not need, though, is more Solyndra's. Anyone who believes in solar is free to invest their own money, few do.

Quote:

This page alone completely demonstrates why I have never, and expect to never, vote in an election. Both parties are bat-shit. I can only hope the severe rift between them somehow ends up in MAD and we can start over with something a little more realistic and sensible.



Do you get involved in recruitment and hiring in your position? I ask because when I had to do that I learned you cannot make such complaints. At some point you have to pick from the people who walked in the door. Now I do not encourage voting to vote. In fact if we had fewer low-information voters we would have a better USA. But even if we replaced both parties we would be complaining about what replaced them in 10 years.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
June 11th, 2013 at 3:25:49 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Teaching intelligent design alongside is all most are asking.


That wasn't his suggestion, though -- the suggestion was to teach "creationism (from all religions)," not just Intelligent Design. That includes the biblical creation story, the myriad Native American creation stories, the ancient Egyptian creation story, the ancient Roman/Greek creation story, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation story. Surely you can't expect a public institution to respect one establishment of religion over another: such is un-Constitutional. But since none of those creation stories are properly scientific at all -- in that no disproof is possible for any of them -- they do not belong in science class.

Intelligent Design is not science if you can't examine or test it, no matter how many times someone with a faith-based bias says otherwise. There is no rational basis for preferring one creation story (e.g., biblical creationism) over another creation story (e.g., Atum/Ra/Khepri, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) when all are equally inscrutable.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 6092
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
June 11th, 2013 at 4:42:24 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

I would support a school system that teaches evolution ALONGSIDE creationism (from all religions).



Wow, Scientology loves you. Religion in publicly funded schools. Scinos are loving this. What's to prevent scientology from demanding The Pinnellas county school system in Florida teach that L Ron Hubbard is the greatest American ever. Scientology says they and only they can get people off drugs. They try everyday to try to get their front group Narconon to give out bogus literature in our schools about their anti-drug stance. They have something called the purification rundown to get people off drugs. They say that drug residue stays with you for many many years. Only the purification rundown will get rid of that residue. Is this science, of course not, L RON simply thought it up. They believe they can sweat out the drugs. Ridiculous. They want to teach all students about this. In truth its all BS. They claim a 70 per cent success rate. If you believe that, I got bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. But hey, with boymimbo logic, just include scientology concepts in the curriculum and let the students decide for themselves. Evolution, creationism, and scientologys space aliens that infected the human race with body thetans that only scientology can help you with.
Scientology loves you boymimbo, you are their gateway into infecting our public school system with their total bs.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 11th, 2013 at 5:09:13 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

That wasn't his suggestion, though -- the suggestion was to teach "creationism (from all religions)," not just Intelligent Design. That includes the biblical creation story, the myriad Native American creation stories, the ancient Egyptian creation story, the ancient Roman/Greek creation story, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation story. Surely you can't expect a public institution to respect one establishment of religion over another: such is un-Constitutional. But since none of those creation stories are properly scientific at all -- in that no disproof is possible for any of them -- they do not belong in science class.



You would not have to go thru each and every one. You could simply touch the high points of each and homogenize them into the idea that a superior being has created the earth/universe as we know it and has guided evolution along the way. At that point you could show the difference in definition of a Deist (God created the world then let it on its own) and a Creationist (believes God created things and guided evolution.)

It does indeed have a place in a science class because science still cannot answer, "If we came from apes, how come we still have apes?" Nor can science answer the "why" of it all. Science is supposed to be about questioning things. Teaching an alternate theory held by a large group within our society is not making people go to church.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 6092
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
June 11th, 2013 at 5:17:21 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

You would not have to go thru each and every one. You could simply touch the high points of each and homogenize them into the idea that a superior being has created the earth/universe as we know it and has guided evolution along the way. At that point you could show the difference in definition of a Deist (God created the world then let it on its own) and a Creationist (believes God created things and guided evolution.)

It does indeed have a place in a science class because science still cannot answer, "If we came from apes, how come we still have apes?" Nor can science answer the "why" of it all. Science is supposed to be about questioning things. Teaching an alternate theory held by a large group within our society is not making people go to church.



Maybe we descended from space aliens. Scientology believes in a superior being, his name is L RON HUBBARD, He's alive doing research, he just dropped the body. Cant wait for junior to come home and tell me all about the scientology concepts he learned in school.
kenarman
kenarman
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 966
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
June 11th, 2013 at 5:56:09 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

It does indeed have a place in a science class because science still cannot answer, "If we came from apes, how come we still have apes?" Nor can science answer the "why" of it all.



Of course science can and does answer your question, what a bunch of crap that statement is.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 6092
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
June 11th, 2013 at 6:17:14 PM permalink
Quote: kenarman

Of course science can and does answer your question, what a bunch of crap that statement is.



I agree, the problem with the right is that they think a theory is just something someone thought up. There is actually a ton of science behind evolution.
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
June 11th, 2013 at 7:06:25 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman


It does indeed have a place in a science class because science still cannot answer, "If we came from apes, how come we still have apes?" Nor can science answer the "why" of it all. Science is supposed to be about questioning things. Teaching an alternate theory held by a large group within our society is not making people go to church.



The ape question stems from a completely lack of understanding of science in two major regards one we didn't descend from modern day apes two even if we did you descended from your father and grandfather but both of them could easily still be alive. Your horrible attempt to discredit evolution is akin to saying if we descended from great great grandpa why do I have 3rd cousins. Also science is not about teaching alternate theories its about testing hypothesis and formulating theories. I mean alchemy is an alternate "theory" to chemistry and no one considers teaching it. There is no controversy in science over evolution happening. We don't need to teach every inane theory that enters someones head, should we teach holocaust denial in history class.

Also even if we couldn't answer these questions that doesn't mean you just insert god did it. Progress comes by looking beyond that. God did it ends research. If god guided evolution who's to say it follows consistent rules and if it doesn't follow consistent rules how can you study it in any meaningful way. Same goes for any place you insert God did it into.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
June 11th, 2013 at 7:45:00 PM permalink
Man does affect climate. The temperature is warmer every night in cities due to the urban heat island effect (by a few degrees F). Studies have shown that vapor trails from planes can instigate cloud formation. And yeah, more "greenhouse gases" such as CO2 and CH4 cause more energy to be absorbed by the atmosphere from the sun (and less to be reflected to space). The only things that can increase CO2 is us. To deny that is to deny science. It is easy to calculate how much energy the earth receives from the sun how much is reflected back to space given the makeup of our atmosphere and the earth's albedo. With that knowledge alone we can calculate the temperature of our planet (and every other planet too).

Atmospheric makeup is key to how warm a planet is. When you change the makeup of the atmosphere (and yes, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere by more than 25% in the past 57 years), the earth absorption patterns changes. The overall reflectivity of the atmosphere is also subject to the earth's albedo (the sun's energy will reflect off snow, clouds, and ice and absorb into oceans and dark matter). Natural fluctuations do come along - large volcanic eruptions inject dust into the upper atmosphere which decreases absorbtion and cools the earth. A lack of sunspots on the sun results in the sun putting out less energy which cools the earth. A good solid nuclear war would make the earth alot cooler because a solid dust cloud around the planet would mean that much more of the sun's energy will be reflected.

Climatologists are now trying to figure out why the temperature predications haven't come true because obviously there is an offset going on. I will say that the climate scientists made a simple argument because the patterns were precisely going as they predicted they would until very recently, which is fine. So now, they changed their tune and now it's "climate change" instead of "global warming".

The oceans also act as a great carbon and temperature sink as well. The ocean's PH is also decreasing as a result of the increased carbon (more carbon dioxide released in the ocean results in a release of carbonic acid) which affects ocean life (negatively) and most particularly coral.

So really there are many paths we can go on: put our heads in the sand and say that we are not affecting the atmosphere (extreme), that mother nature will take care of itself (not likely), or that we can adjust (definitely, but the animal kingdom won't), or do something about it by finding technologies and adjust our lifestyle (globally) to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.

---------------
I think evolution should probably be taught in Grade 10/11 Biology as an elective. I think that a section on various theories of creation (including intelligent design) should be taught in an optional world history class also at the Grade 10/11 level.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
June 11th, 2013 at 9:15:21 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

that mother nature will take care of itself



It does. In the form of plagues, floods, overpopulation, famine, fires, drought.

Mother Nature can be a real bitch. It can be a bitch even if you plan, but to quote the Boy Scout motto: Be prepared. They were always right on that.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
June 11th, 2013 at 9:36:52 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman



It does indeed have a place in a science class because science still cannot answer, "If we came from apes, how come we still have apes?"



Except it already -does- answer that question, partly as the question itself misunderstands the Theory. We don't come from apes. Apes and humans have a common ancestor. Also, the Modern Evolution Synthesis doesn't proscribe evolution to allow for a static population (apes) and speciation from that group (humans). The fossil record however suggests that this didn't happen in the case of homo sapiens.

Also look at Crocodiles to answer you questions about what causes animals to speciate... not just breeding programs, but the natural environment changes some crocodiles to have longer snouts, dependent on the other fish in their sub environment. The crocodile spread across the world, and we have different types of the same family.

So question answered. And your previous question answered. Both you claimed 'science can't answer'. Those questions have been answered... but there are many more people are asking, and others science have answered and we will in time discover that the answer we thought was wrong. Maybe totally, but in most cases, in need of refining.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
June 11th, 2013 at 11:15:19 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

[Creationism] does indeed have a place in a science class because science still cannot answer, "If we came from apes, how come we still have apes?" Nor can science answer the "why" of it all. Science is supposed to be about questioning things. Teaching an alternate theory held by a large group within our society is not making people go to church.


This has amply been answered by others, but you make four errors. One is that your question is flawed. Humans didn't "come from apes;" rather, there was an ancient, common genetic ancestor that has long since gone extinct (in the same way that homo neanderthalensis went extinct). Humans and apes are different species. That's what "speciation" is. The second is that science can and has answered how that all happened -- that's the purpose of the field of paleoanthropology. The third error is that one should not examine untestable faith-based dogmas along with testable scientific theories and call them all science. You can't test your "alternate theory" that "God did it," any more than you can test another alternate theory that Atum created himself, then created a hill, and then some time later created humans. Neither the Egyptian creation story nor the Judeo-Christian creation story are science.

The fourth error, and the most important one, is that science should not be answering "why" at all. The "why" you posit is not a scientific question, able to be tested and disproven (like "why is the sky blue?"), but a moral, "meaning-of-life" why. Science is not directed toward explaining why things are the way they are from a moral or ethical viewpoint, and such questions do not properly belong in a science classroom but a philosophy or theology classroom. The conflation of science and religion has, over the course of human history, tended to be far more dangerous to religious beliefs than scientific ones. Pay heed to the fate of Helios.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/religion/7360-there-is-no-god/95/#post248042
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
24Bingo
24Bingo
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
June 11th, 2013 at 11:50:15 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

You would not have to go thru each and every one. You could simply touch the high points of each and homogenize them into the idea that a superior being has created the earth/universe as we know it and has guided evolution along the way. At that point you could show the difference in definition of a Deist (God created the world then let it on its own) and a Creationist (believes God created things and guided evolution.)



In other words, "oh, I don't actually mean to teach the 'controversy,' just my beliefs under a fig leaf of tolerance."

Quote: AZDuffman

It does indeed have a place in a science class because science still cannot answer, "If we came from apes, how come we still have apes?"



...really? This question?

There are different lines of hominoid. We're one of them. The rest just went through a series of different circumstances over the past few million years. There's nothing to say that we're "above" them, much less that they should ever become like us.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
June 12th, 2013 at 12:02:32 AM permalink
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So are you saying that humans & apes are ethically dissimilar?
Fighting BS one post at a time!
FrGamble
FrGamble
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
June 12th, 2013 at 5:58:16 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: AZDuffman

[Creationism] does indeed have a place in a science class because science still cannot answer, "If we came from apes, how come we still have apes?" Nor can science answer the "why" of it all. Science is supposed to be about questioning things. Teaching an alternate theory held by a large group within our society is not making people go to church.


This has amply been answered by others, but you make four errors. One is that your question is flawed. Humans didn't "come from apes;" rather, there was an ancient, common genetic ancestor that has long since gone extinct (in the same way that homo neanderthalensis went extinct). Humans and apes are different species. That's what "speciation" is. The second is that science can and has answered how that all happened -- that's the purpose of the field of paleoanthropology. The third error is that one should not examine untestable faith-based dogmas along with testable scientific theories and call them all science. You can't test your "alternate theory" that "God did it," any more than you can test another alternate theory that Atum created himself, then created a hill, and then some time later created humans. Neither the Egyptian creation story nor the Judeo-Christian creation story are science.

The fourth error, and the most important one, is that science should not be answering "why" at all. The "why" you posit is not a scientific question, able to be tested and disproven (like "why is the sky blue?"), but a moral, "meaning-of-life" why. Science is not directed toward explaining why things are the way they are from a moral or ethical viewpoint, and such questions do not properly belong in a science classroom but a philosophy or theology classroom. The conflation of science and religion has, over the course of human history, tended to be far more dangerous to religious beliefs than scientific ones. Pay heed to the fate of Helios.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/religion/7360-there-is-no-god/95/#post248042



Yet, again LIKE +100!
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
June 12th, 2013 at 8:28:52 PM permalink
Quote: Beethoven9th

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So are you saying that humans & apes are ethically dissimilar?



In some cases. In others, its very hard to tell them apart.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
  • Jump to: