Obama or McCain?

[McBain]

Im for Obama.

Not that I get a vote or would if I did, but you gotta look at the history of American Presidents.

Obamas younger, he's fiestier, he wants it more.

McCain is just old, and if old politicians have taught us anything, its that theyre boring, set in their evil ways, and never do anything good for a country.

And non-compulsary voting? Whats up with that? Its a recipe for crooked results.

 

[sotnas]

Hey mate, you make it sound like the last four years of a Republican Presidency were a disaster.

And please continue to parrot the liberal view that Republicans don't care about poverty.

Those eeeeeeevil Republicans.

Muwhahahahaha....World Domination will soon be ours.

One thing I've learned over the last 3 presidential elections in the United States:

How much a candidate is liked by Europeans is negatively correlated to how good a US President they'd make. Al Gore first. Then John Kerry. Now Barack Obama.

Yep, you Europeans can sure pick 'em.

Thank goodness you don't get a vote.

If only those russians were skint again... Damn, it's hard to convince the world we're fair and righteous all the time.b)

Btw, TX did Bush have a better spell than Clinton? (I'm really just asking, not a drop of ironic sense in it).

 

[gordonjblair]

1) Darwinism is theory. Strictly that. There is no factual evidence of evolution. I'd rather neither be taught in the classroom to be frank.

OH

MY

GOD

Tx, seriously?

Evolution is fact, look around. Or are all these fossils that keep getting dug up planted by leftie atheist conspiracy theorists?

What IS a theory, is the mechanism by which evolution occurs... but it's one of the most robust scientific theories out there, and guess what, every time it gets tested as our knowledge of genetics and our genome grows it becomes more and more robust and the answers become clearer... all of this in spite of scientific method which is to test and challenge theories until only the fittest survive [kinda elegant symmetry, eh?]

By all means have faith if it helps (and I genuinely believe it does for many people), but don't [Poor language removed] up the education system by indoctrinating kids, let them find their faith at home and in church, not in science classes, that's the one place where faith has no place.

Have to permit myself a wry smile, I have the same debate with my mum on a regular basis (she's still a regular at the Kingdom Hall).

 

[Nebbiolo]

OH

MY

GOD

Tx, seriously?

Evolution is fact, look around. Or are all these fossils that keep getting dug up planted by leftie atheist conspiracy theorists?

What IS a theory, is the mechanism by which evolution occurs... but it's one of the most robust scientific theories out there, and guess what, every time it gets tested as our knowledge of genetics and our genome grows it becomes more and more robust and the answers become clearer... all of this in spite of scientific method which is to test and challenge theories until only the fittest survive [kinda elegant symmetry, eh?]

By all means have faith if it helps (and I genuinely believe it does for many people), but don't [Poor language removed] up the education system by indoctrinating kids, let them find their faith at home and in church, not in science classes, that's the one place where faith has no place.

Have to permit myself a wry smile, I have the same debate with my mum on a regular basis (she's still a regular at the Kingdom Hall).

You've hit he nail on the head there, Gordon. The hallmark of a scientific theory is that it is fruitful. That is, it provides answers not on an ad-hoc basis, which a pseudo-scientist would use to explain away uncomfortable data, but based on what appears apparent in the external world as we know it.

Like I said in an earlier post, creationists, who are probably the most powerful pseudo-scientists today, have actually claimed that the fossil record is a sign that God wanted to make it appear that there had been a distant past. This is an ad-hoc answer to a problem. These people have to try and make the evidence fit in with a conclusion that will never, ever be abandoned.

Meanwhile, the evolutionist would say that the fossil recored is sign that a distant past existed and the evidence for it lies in this fossil record. He would say that because the answer does not beg more questions than it answers. It fits with the appearance of the world, and no better answer has yet been offered to why fossils exist.

A good theory should also provide clues as to further tests that can be undeertaken which can also be be used to predict further hypotheses. I think the key word which everyone ought to remember when contemplating whether a theory is worth its salt is whether at least its component parts are testable. If not, then you're dealing with a faith position. And faith and science don't usually mix on the grand scale. The exception to this is when a scientist might posit some type of hidden variable, which is generally inferred from the behaviour of other observed variables (this happens pretty much all the time I believe in quantum mechanics). This might tidy a theory up somewhat and might be necessary so that further work in the field can progress.

 

[TX Bill]

If only those russians were skint again... Damn, it's hard to convince the world we're fair and righteous all the time.b)

Btw, TX did Bush have a better spell than Clinton? (I'm really just asking, not a drop of ironic sense in it).

Both had their pluses and minuses.

However if you listen to the Dems, Bush could do no right and Clinton could do no wrong. To a certain extent, the Republicans felt the same way about Clinton vs. Bush.

The big big difference is that Republicans would openly admit Bush's failings whereas the Dems NEVER admit the failings of one of their own.

Yes, I'm using an absolute there. NEVER.

 

[TX Bill]

OH

MY

GOD

Tx, seriously?

Evolution is fact, look around. Or are all these fossils that keep getting dug up planted by leftie atheist conspiracy theorists?

What IS a theory, is the mechanism by which evolution occurs... but it's one of the most robust scientific theories out there, and guess what, every time it gets tested as our knowledge of genetics and our genome grows it becomes more and more robust and the answers become clearer... all of this in spite of scientific method which is to test and challenge theories until only the fittest survive [kinda elegant symmetry, eh?]

By all means have faith if it helps (and I genuinely believe it does for many people), but don't [Poor language removed] up the education system by indoctrinating kids, let them find their faith at home and in church, not in science classes, that's the one place where faith has no place.

Have to permit myself a wry smile, I have the same debate with my mum on a regular basis (she's still a regular at the Kingdom Hall).

Whoa mate, did you just fall off the turnip truck?

Fossils prove evolution? Fossils prove that there was plant and animal life at a certain time. That is all.

I'm talking about us coming from apes vs. Adam and Eve.

Are you really gonna tell me that it's scientifically proven that I came from a monkey and NOT as a decendant of Adam and Eve?

Really?

Because if you are, you need to have a word with yourself. There's no factual evidence at all that I came from an ape. None.

So to quote you Blair... Seriously?

 

[Nebbiolo]

Both had their pluses and minuses.

However if you listen to the Dems, Bush could do no right and Clinton could do no wrong. To a certain extent, the Republicans felt the same way about Clinton vs. Bush.

The big big difference is that Republicans would openly admit Bush's failings whereas the Dems NEVER admit the failings of one of their own.

Yes, I'm using an absolute there. NEVER.

That's surely a sign of party unity? I mean, I could approach it from a different angle and say, at least Democrats get behind their man or woman. But look at those nasty Republicans. Talk about stabbing your leader in the back. It's happening over in the UK at the moment with lame duck Gordon Brown getting sniped at. What reason is this for? Probably to further the careers of the snipers. Politics is dirty.

 

[TX Bill]

That's surely a sign of party unity? I mean, I could approach it from a different angle and say, at least Democrats get behind their man or woman. But look at those nasty Republicans. Talk about stabbing your leader in the back. It's happening over in the UK at the moment with lame duck Gordon Brown getting sniped at. What reason is this for? Probably to further the careers of the snipers. Politics is dirty.

Except that when you see the inevitable corruption that accompanies politics. Republicans will admit that if one of their own fails (yes, we do have members of our party that let the public down upon occasion), that member needs to be dealt with as the rules state.

Not the Dems, they'll admit nothing and actually try and turn the tables and say that it's an "eeeeeevil Republican plot" to take power.

It's par for the course with the Democrats. ALWAYS.

They can do no wrong in their own eyes.

 

[Dylan]

I'll give it to the Democrats though. They know how to party!!!! *Cough*Spizter, Clinton*cough, cough*

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Whoa mate, did you just fall off the turnip truck?

Fossils prove evolution? Fossils prove that there was plant and animal life at a certain time. That is all.

I'm talking about us coming from apes vs. Adam and Eve.

Are you really gonna tell me that it's scientifically proven that I came from a monkey and NOT as a decendant of Adam and Eve?

Really?

Because if you are, you need to have a word with yourself. There's no factual evidence at all that I came from an ape. None.

So to quote you Blair... Seriously?

I'm not going to go over old ground defending evolution as there is a wealth of evidence out there. The Berkley website provides a pretty thorough resource on the subject http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

But. Lets assume that there was no evidence for evolution, the absence of evidence for evolution surely doesn't make the proposal of ID any more substantial? Surely only further evidence to support that can do this?

It's a bit like saying because we're not signing SWP (seemingly fact now) that we're automatically signing Riquelme.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Whoa mate, did you just fall off the turnip truck?

Fossils prove evolution? Fossils prove that there was plant and animal life at a certain time. That is all.

I'm talking about us coming from apes vs. Adam and Eve.

Are you really gonna tell me that it's scientifically proven that I came from a monkey and NOT as a decendant of Adam and Eve?

Really?

Because if you are, you need to have a word with yourself. There's no factual evidence at all that I came from an ape. None.

So to quote you Blair... Seriously?

Effectively nothing can be proved conclusively. You think that the external world exists. I tell you it doesn't, at least not the one that you see. You, TX, are merely a brain in a vat. You're being fed experiences. Everything you see around you is due to software being pumped into your brain.

You can't prove me wrong, I can't prove you right. But for the sake of sanity, we have to accept one theory as better. I'm with you and believe TX does exist, in Texas.

So we can use the word "proof" in what I call a loose sense. And what fossils do "prove" is that there has been gradual progression of plant and animal life over the many ages. We can see subtle changes and progressions as different species adapt to the surroundings that they find themselves in.

The reason you are probably an adaptation of an ape is because we've yet to find any creature, or remains of it, that share so much of the human profile. Given what we know about evolution, then it makes sense to link the ape together with the human. It's the most likely answer as to where humans have come from. We could posit other theories, such as we're from Atlantis, Space or that God made Adam and Eve and we are the result of their sexual encounters.

But which of these sounds the most coherent theory? Which of these theories relies on evidence? Which theory above might be due to wishful thinking? Which theory sounds just plain silly? Why would we not privilege the theory that makes perfect sense to us?

[Awaits the "missing link" argument ]

 

[chicoazul]

Bill, you must hate Bill Maher I take it?

 

[SuitsBlue]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZcztxRquo[/media]

from revelations.

 

[SuitsBlue]

disclaimer for the above post - particularly liable to offend.

 

[TX Bill]

Effectively nothing can be proved conclusively. You think that the external world exists. I tell you it doesn't, at least not the one that you see. You, TX, are merely a brain in a vat. You're being fed experiences. Everything you see around you is due to software being pumped into your brain.

You can't prove me wrong, I can't prove you right. But for the sake of sanity, we have to accept one theory as better. I'm with you and believe TX does exist, in Texas.

So we can use the word "proof" in what I call a loose sense. And what fossils do "prove" is that there has been gradual progression of plant and animal life over the many ages. We can see subtle changes and progressions as different species adapt to the surroundings that they find themselves in.

The reason you are probably an adaptation of an ape is because we've yet to find any creature, or remains of it, that share so much of the human profile. Given what we know about evolution, then it makes sense to link the ape together with the human. It's the most likely answer as to where humans have come from. We could posit other theories, such as we're from Atlantis, Space or that God made Adam and Eve and we are the result of their sexual encounters.

But which of these sounds the most coherent theory? Which of these theories relies on evidence? Which theory above might be due to wishful thinking? Which theory sounds just plain silly? Why would we not privilege the theory that makes perfect sense to us?

[Awaits the "missing link" argument ]

Missing Link argument? Not too familiar with that unless I know it under another name.

We can go round and round on this subject (as has been done ages before this conversation) and get nowhere.

You ask good questions.

I would ask those exact same questions about evolution.

I mean the Big Bang? Come on? Really? We came out of absolutely nothing into existence?

It all had to start somewhere mate. Chew on that for awhile.

I'd actually submit that it takes much more faith to be an atheist than it would to believe in God and that he created us.

I do find it a interesting that over the ages, people have gone out of their way to disprove what's in the Bible and after 2000 years, have been unable to do so. Don't you find that interesting? I mean if it's bunk, it should be easily disproved as such.

I'll leave you and the other science based/evidence only believers with this.

Take a gander at Hugh Ross' site "Reasons to Believe." He's an astrophysicist by trade (I believe that would qualify him as a scientist) and would probably touch on many of the questions you ask. Not only would he be able to touch on them, he could easily answer them much much better than I ever could.

http://www.reasons.org/

(EDIT: Upon reading through the many topics that the website addresses, I think that those who lean towards science might find many of these fascinating. In other words, they take a scientific viewpoint on just about every topic. I hope I'm not wrong. TX)