He Hated the Hippies...Didn't He?

[JoeZhang]

I think the left have at the very least caught up with the social conservative right when it comes to dismissing opposing views without much follow-up and discussion (see JoeZhang's comments above for an example).

What makes you think I'm of 'the left'? How much conversation is required when your basic premise is completely wrong ?

You might as well have said "That the moon is made of cheese is widely accepted by many scientists" because that's on about the same level - there is nothing sensible to discuss. That's why I suggested you get a high school textbook not because I was mocking you but because your understanding of the issues is so low it would make sensible conversation impossible without you obtaining a basic education in the sciences.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

That evolution is a law and not still a theory and that all evolutionists are in agreement as to how life began (incidentally they aren't and many of them have postulated that the origin of life may in fact be congruous with several creation "myths")

It's not trolling luv, it's called a conversation where different ideas are discussed. If you don't agree with something, then post your opinion about it. If you'd rather not, then go play with your ponies. But please, no veiled threats.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

I think the left have at the very least caught up with the social conservative right when it comes to dismissing opposing views without much follow-up and discussion (see JoeZhang's comments above for an example).

What makes you think I'm of 'the left'? How much conversation is required when your basic premise is completely wrong ?

You might as well have said "That the moon is made of cheese is widely accepted by many scientists" because that's on about the same level - there is nothing sensible to discuss. That's why I suggested you get a high school textbook not because I was mocking you but because your understanding of the issues is so low it would make sensible conversation impossible without you obtaining a basic education in the sciences.

Do you know what you are talking about? If so, then clarify rather than dismiss. My basic premise is wrong? Evolutionists and ID'ers are and have been in heated debate over the origin of life in general and human life specifically. The idea that evolution is as solid a truth as 2+2=4 or the law of gravity is simply not the case and there is dissension among members of the scientific community. I have offered to provide references, do you wish to see them? Please explain why you feel my basic premise is wrong in more than one sentence and without personal insult please. I apologize if I assumed you are leftist, that was wrong of me.

 

[Kemaiku]

I didn't think I would have to stop and explain a straight forward macro with such a simple visual aesthetic but alright.

It was;

A) A remark on your continued trolling of this thread and attempting to get a rise out of it's contributors.

B) An added irony that the character shown is a drama queen, a further implication of your attempts to gain attention by your actions.

C) A demonstration of our recognition of both A and B and our apathy towards said.

If that's too many big words I can try and borrow hand puppets for you.

 

[JoeZhang]

The idea that evolution is as solid a truth as 2+2=4 or the law of gravity is simply not the case and there is dissension among members of the scientific community.

LOL - creationists always pick out the 'law of gravity' as the item of comparison which is a daft move because we know less about gravity than evolution, gravity is both theory and law (analytic statement).

So if gravity is a 'solid truth' (Truth doesn't actually mean anything in science so we generally avoid that word) - how does it work?

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation gives an approximation of what happens but it doesn't tell us why.

So you tell me why does gravity work?

Actually on second thoughts, don't tell me, write straight off for your nobel prize.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think the left have at the very least caught up with the social conservative right when it comes to dismissing opposing views without much follow-up and discussion (see JoeZhang's comments above for an example).

What makes you think I'm of 'the left'? How much conversation is required when your basic premise is completely wrong ?

You might as well have said "That the moon is made of cheese is widely accepted by many scientists" because that's on about the same level - there is nothing sensible to discuss. That's why I suggested you get a high school textbook not because I was mocking you but because your understanding of the issues is so low it would make sensible conversation impossible without you obtaining a basic education in the sciences.

Do you know what you are talking about? If so, then clarify rather than dismiss. My basic premise is wrong? Evolutionists and ID'ers are and have been in heated debate over the origin of life in general and human life specifically. The idea that evolution is as solid a truth as 2+2=4 or the law of gravity is simply not the case and there is dissension among members of the scientific community. I have offered to provide references, do you wish to see them? Please explain why you feel my basic premise is wrong in more than one sentence and without personal insult please. I apologize if I assumed you are leftist, that was wrong of me.

I can certainly dispel one misconception you are exhibiting here.

Evolution--as in macroevolution--is not controversial. It was an established observation even before Darwin. We saw species in the fossil record that don't exist today, and an absence of most species we have now. We needed an explanation for that.

Darwin proposed natural selection as the mechanism. It has been refined over the years, but it is still the basic explanation we have for evolution.

Natural selection has been somewhat controversial, however there is no reputable scientific literature that has proposed a theory which better fits the facts.

Put simple: evolution is the fact that the theory of natural selection was devised to explain. If natural selection turns out to be incorrect (which seems unlikely at this point, but I'll play Devil's advocate), that doesn't invalidate evolution. Nothing would invalidate evolution short of fossil discoveries that indisputably show (for instance) humans walking among dinosaurs.

People really need to learn the difference between those two concepts.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

The idea that evolution is as solid a truth as 2+2=4 or the law of gravity is simply not the case and there is dissension among members of the scientific community.

LOL - creationists always pick out the 'law of gravity' as the item of comparison which is a daft move because we know less about gravity than evolution, gravity is both theory and law (analytic statement).

So if gravity is a 'solid truth' (Truth doesn't actually mean anything in science so we generally avoid that word) - how does it work?

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation gives an approximation of what happens but it doesn't tell us why.

So you tell me why does gravity work?

Actually on second thoughts, don't tell me, write straight off for your nobel prize.

I'll offer for a third and final time. The list of references of work done in this area sir by legitimate scientists, would you like them?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Of course there are zealots on the right who would love to take things back to the 1950s or 1880s and I am not trying to defend them. I am trying to point out that the left seems to have convinced itself that not only is its point of view the only correct one, but that any opposing point of view is inherently evil or unenlightened. As this is the predominant position at most of our institutions of higher learning, I think there is a very real danger of spawning a generation of people who accept without question or critical analysis

Nah, at best they think folks with opposing view points are ill-informed or uneducated. A few might say "evil" but that's just hyperbole. The right does the same. Don't fall for the hype. Both side have been known to eschew "critical analysis", though in my experience its more common on the social conservative right.

I think the left have at the very least caught up with the social conservative right when it comes to dismissing opposing views without much follow-up and discussion (see JoeZhang's comments above for an example).

About science and evolution? The discussion has been going on for over a century. The opposing view points have been discredited. Digging in one's heels will not change that nor will "rebranding" the argument. There is a method to science.

"Gender identity is the gender with which one identifies and it may or may not coincide with that person's physical sex. Gender Construction Theory to my understanding is the idea that society plays a bigger role in determining which behavioral characteristics are prevalent in males and which in females rather than these being the product of any inherent physiological causes. If you believe in born this way, then you would probably disagree that gender is constructed. This is not to be confused with sexual orientation. A gay man may still have a male gender identity and a straight man may have a female gender identity.

Society does define gender roles though. The Barbie or the Gun?

I grant that I may have engaged in some hyperbole, but I disagree that the upper levels of power (at least in academia) are still governed by conservative white males; nor am I suggesting that they should be, I just don't think that only one way of thinking should be elevated to the status of Truth with a capital "T."

I wasn't speaking of academia but society at large. Though even in academia white males are dominant at the upper echelons.

Truth is relative. Science not so much.

On the one hand you say that we should be respectful and understanding and yet when it comes to different opinions you are quite ready to throw out absolutes like right and wrong and talk about tossing things onto scrap heaps. Who gets to decide what is wrong and right when it comes to opinions on these topics and who presides over the scrap heap?

Depends on the opinion. Not all opinions are equal. Some things like racism and sexism should be tossed on the scrap heap. Others might be a bit nebulous. When it comes to things involving science, I'll go with the folks using the scientific method to test and verify their "opinions" over someone basing their "opinions" on a book written 2000 years ago.

We all preside over the scrap heap.

 

[JoeZhang]

The idea that evolution is as solid a truth as 2+2=4 or the law of gravity is simply not the case and there is dissension among members of the scientific community.

LOL - creationists always pick out the 'law of gravity' as the item of comparison which is a daft move because we know less about gravity than evolution, gravity is both theory and law (analytic statement).

So if gravity is a 'solid truth' (Truth doesn't actually mean anything in science so we generally avoid that word) - how does it work?

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation gives an approximation of what happens but it doesn't tell us why.

So you tell me why does gravity work?

Actually on second thoughts, don't tell me, write straight off for your nobel prize.

I'll offer for a third and final time. The list of references of work done in this area sir by legitimate scientists, would you like them?

I'll done the gish gallop with creationists before - are those going to be links to Answers in genesis or the like? I've seen those before. Creationists like yourself generally link to the same ten or so sources over and over again, it's been a while since I've seen a new one.

However if you like appeals to authority, here's a list of Steves for you.

If you've got actual scientific papers, you'd like to link to I'd be happy to read them.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

I didn't think I would have to stop and explain a straight forward macro with such a simple visual aesthetic but alright.

It was;

A) A remark on your continued trolling of this thread and attempting to get a rise out of it's contributors.

B) An added irony that the character shown is a drama queen, a further implication of your attempts to gain attention by your actions.

C) A demonstration of our recognition of both A and B and our apathy towards said.

If that's too many big words I can try and borrow hand puppets for you.

A) If discussing opposing viewpoints in a civil manner (and I have tried to do so despite others failing to do likewise) fits your definition of trolling, then so be it.

B) I am not familiar with the character shown, so yes your allusion was lost on me.

C) If you are so apathetic, then why have you involved yourself in this discussion and why do you feel the need to be insulting and demeaning (i.e., your reference to big words and hand puppets).

 

[Bubbles McGee]

LOL - creationists always pick out the 'law of gravity' as the item of comparison which is a daft move because we know less about gravity than evolution, gravity is both theory and law (analytic statement).

So if gravity is a 'solid truth' (Truth doesn't actually mean anything in science so we generally avoid that word) - how does it work?

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation gives an approximation of what happens but it doesn't tell us why.

So you tell me why does gravity work?

Actually on second thoughts, don't tell me, write straight off for your nobel prize.

I'll offer for a third and final time. The list of references of work done in this area sir by legitimate scientists, would you like them?

I'll done the gish gallop with creationists before - are those going to be links to Answers in genesis or the like? I've seen those before. Creationists like yourself generally link to the same ten or so sources over and over again, it's been a while since I've seen one.

However if you like appeals to authority, here's a list of Steves for you.

If you've got actual scientific papers, you'd like to link to I'd be happy to read them.

Incidentally, I am not a creationist, I just believe in the free exchange of ideas. I'll look at yours but I need a little time to compile mine and will send them to you ASAP. And no, they will not be the kind of drivel you are expecting, I am all too familiar with those myself.

 

[JoeZhang]

Incidentally, I am not a creationist, I just believe in the free exchange of ideas.

Come on.. let's not kid each other - seriously all of your statements are straight out of the creationists handbook - it's like we are talking French to each other and you suddenly claimed that you only spoke English. I've debating creationists for about 15 years, you haven't made a single claim yet that isn't standard creationism.

 

[Kemaiku]

Because I see what essentially amounts to a Creationist, and I have years enough of experience with them to know their little tricks, and so I see does everyone else here.

Debating is never an option with such close minded people so mild derision when they pop up can be quite fun without ever giving them the illusion of legitimacy that replying with words can create.

And honestly, drama queen, hand puppets, if you consider those to be insults and take them personally, you haven't been around the internet long.

And apathy is not lethargy. I can expend effort and still not particularly care.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

In case anyone was confused, "free exchange of ideas" does not mean "I get to substitute my baseless assertions for your evidence-based facts."

 

[Kemaiku]

It's not trolling luv. But please, no veiled threats.

Oh and don't call me "luv". I'm not a woman, and if I were, it would still be demeaning and crude. But hey, you're already a creationist, being a misogynist probably isn't all that big a deal for you.

And if My Little Pony constitutes a "threat", well then your world view must be more fragile than we thought.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

First of all, I am not a creationist. I will say that I have heard and read valid points made by scientists that were later discredited in some cases by creationists and in others by fellow scientists. I of course have also heard and read valid points made by ID'ers that were also discredited both by evolutionists as well by their own fellow ID'ers.

As a human being I can totally understand the need to find the key to the mysteries of the universe and of our own beginnings. But that is precisely my point, much of these matters remain quite mysterious despite all of the hard work being done on both sides. The fact is, I don't know with whom I should throw in my lot and so I remain open to opposing views and I defend the right of people to hold and to discuss those views.

And even if I were a creationist, the fact that any of you would feel so justified in being so condescending and dismissive is troubling. Isn't scientific inquiry supposed to be about the perpetual search for objective truth? Just a thought, not a judgment. I do have to get back to my real life now, but I will compile those sources and send them to JoeZhang who in turn may wish to share them with you. I would be happy to discuss this further after that time. I can either post them here or PM them to you. Give me a couple of days as I really have let my real life stuff pile up. Good chat for the most part though.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

In case anyone was confused, "free exchange of ideas" does not mean "I get to substitute my baseless assertions for your evidence-based facts."

Science is not always absolute, more research is done, new data emerges, paradigms shift. What seems incontrovertible today may seem ridiculous tomorrow.

I am not saying that Evolution is necessarily a load of bunk, I am just saying that it is not beyond criticism and further analysis.

 

[Kemaiku]

I do have to get back to my real life now....

Convenient.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

It's not trolling luv. But please, no veiled threats.

Oh and don't call me "luv". I'm not a woman, and if I were, it would still be demeaning and crude. But hey, you're already a creationist, being a misogynist probably isn't all that big a deal for you.

And if My Little Pony constitutes a "threat", well then your world view must be more fragile than we thought.

I am neither a creationist nor a misogynist. I use "luv" with both men and women. Your pony didn't constitute a threat, it was the caption that seemed to me to imply that you were somehow petitioning for my removal from these boards. Do you deny that? If I have erred in my perception of the intended meaning of your caption then for that I apologize.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In case anyone was confused, "free exchange of ideas" does not mean "I get to substitute my baseless assertions for your evidence-based facts."

Science is not always absolute, more research is done, new data emerges, paradigms shift. What seems incontrovertible today may seem ridiculous tomorrow.

I am not saying that Evolution is necessarily a load of bunk, I am just saying that it is not beyond criticism and further analysis.

I don't think science is going to shift the paradigm towards Creationism. That ship has sailed.