1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Politics Dark matter and politics

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Street Pattern, Apr 21, 2015.

  1. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    Location:
    North
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. omega

    omega Very Tilted

    You keep using that word (science),I do not think it means what you think it means.

    All creationists are blathering idiots. Because they all reject one of the basic tenets of biology. They don't get a pass. And religion is not a pass when it comes to science.
     
  3. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    The issue I take with creationists is that they want to foist their beliefs onto the same playing field as evolution. They say that "creation science" and "intelligent design" is a model that competes with evolution as an explanation of the way things are. In other words, evolution is false because of Creation and intelligent design.

    This is bothersome because evolution has not been falsified. Evolution is a fact. This is bothersome because intelligent design is pseudoscience and Creation is nothing more than a myth.

    "Some claim that evolution is just a theory, as if it were merely an opinion. The theory of evolution — like the theory of gravity — is a scientific fact. Evolution really happened. Accepting our kinship with all life on Earth is not only solid science. In my view, it’s also a soaring spiritual experience."​
    —Neil deGrasse Tyson, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

    To compare creationism to evolution is to compare a religious idea to a set of facts. You can't hold creationists to the same standards that evolutionists are held to. It would be impossible. Creationism has no empirical evidence and offers no testable hypotheses. That alone should tell you that there is no actual debate between the two.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
  4. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Taxpayers are funding the teaching of creationism across the country:

     
  5. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I am not sure where you want to go with this line of discussion, I can respond item by item but I doubt it would be productive. I will summarize my view by saying there is still much we do not know and that it is good to actively question. I question all who appear to have rigid beliefs. Some religious conservatives hold rigid views and the same can be said for other groups.

    If you want to go deeper into one of these topics I am up for it, pick one - religion, evolution, global warming, scientific theory...however, my point in response to a post was that we should engage those who appear to disagree with our point of view - and I respect Darwin who questioned his theories up to his death.
    --- merged: Apr 29, 2015 at 12:13 PM ---
    Evolution occurs, however evolution fails to explain life and the diversity of life on the planet - at this level to believe in evolution in total it requires a level of blind faith. It is blind faith that takes us into the are of religion.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2015
  6. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    There's no need to go into it. Generally, it seems that the problems come from those who reject evolution outright and suggest that creationism is valid. This is a dangerous and harmful view to apply to the education system and public policy. That's the bottom line.

    I don't know if you can reason with anyone who takes that view. They're certainly entitled to that view. They're certainly allowed to voice it. But they should be critiqued and opposed if they try to apply such views where they don't belong.
    If you study evolutionary science enough, you'll see that it actually does quite a good job of explaining life and diversity on the planet. These are, however, very difficult concepts to conceive, in large part because the concept of "deep time" is nothing short of sublime. It towers over our short human lives. I've briefly studied evolutionary science, and it still boggles my mind.

    This is not to say that evolutionary science is complete. The amount that we know is incredibly insignificant compared to what we don't know. We have some idea of the magnitude of the information and potential knowledge that's out there, but even then we don't really know how vast it is. I'm sure many of the scientists who work in evolutionary science (or other related sciences such as geology and even astrophysics) are truly humbled by this. However, I'm also sure that this is what keeps them curious.

    Curiosity is a good thing.
     
  7. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    One poster attempted to lecture me concern theory and how it is based on fact that can be tested and repeated, etc. What you suggest is that humans can control the climate through the manipulation of greenhouse gases. I believe humans can have a short-term impact on micro-climates but can not have a material impact on long-term climate globally. Part of the problem with the debate is that my view is not as simple as saying I deny science. There are people who believe God destroyed the earth by flood and that a guy built a boat with two of every living species...a literal interpretation of the Bible, I think most of the Bible is figurative, loaded with metaphors, hyperbole, euphemisms and other story telling literary techniques - to many we all get lumped in together. Is it because some don't know the difference or is it that they just don't care?
    --- merged: Apr 29, 2015 at 12:39 PM ---
    2+2=4 does not require a belief, evolution does.

    Question - have some humans evolved to a higher degree than other humans? Is natural selection in the human race beneficial to the human race? Do you support the further evolution on the human race? Are you willing to act in a manner consistent with the way you would answer these and other questions? Science can allow us to assume the mantle of "perfecting" the human race - it is my faith in God that does not allow me to believe that is possible or that it is our role - what governs your view?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2015
  8. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Wow, seriously? The theory of evolution isn't as simple as grade one math, but even grade one students need to see two and two added together before they believe that it equals four.

    I don't know how microwaves work, but I don't have to believe in microwave technology to cook a Hot Pocket. If I push the right buttons, it's going to get nice and hot.

    I still don't quite understand how airplanes stay in the air, but my lack of faith is not going to make them fall out of the sky.

    etc.

    But evolutionary science is based on the same principles as grade one math. For example: It is demonstrated (repeatedly and consistently) and so it is true.

    The mechanisms as described under the theory of evolution have been proven. They have been observed, tested, experimented with, etc., to the extent that evolution has been accepted as a scientific fact. It is as real as gravity; it's just harder to observe. It might be hard to believe, but so is the devastation wrought by nuclear weapons. Not believing in it doesn't mean it's never existed. No longer believing in it won't make it go away. It is the way of the universe.

    I imagine you cannot fathom the gravitational impacts of Jupiter in practical terms. (I can't.) That doesn't mean the theory of gravity—i.e., the explanation as to why objects attract each other—"is problematic." It means that you're having a difficult time realizing its impact.

    Why are you asking these questions?

    Do you know how genetics works?

    Do you know the net impact of natural selection? Do you know the positive effects? The negative effects?

    Do you think humans have never evolved? Do you think we will not evolve in the future?

    What does my willingness to act in certain ways have to do with evolution?

    Why are you asking about my view on "perfecting" the human race?

    These are serious questions, and I'd like you to answer them. Sorry to respond to your questions with my own questions, but your questions make me wonder about your views. I need to know where you are coming from so that we can be on the same page. Otherwise, I'd just be humouring you without actually indicating much about my own views.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Most math is factual. Math is verifiable. Math is repeatable resulting in the same answer. Math is universal. Evolution is not. Evolution has elements of chance and elements of uncertainty. You need faith to explain away these elements of chance and uncertainty. You need faith to address issues still unknown as it relates to the theory. Sorry if you don't understand and see this - but it is there and it is obvious. Please get off of your high horse. I am not a 6th grader looking at this subject for the first time.

    That is because you have direct experience, you are not relying on someone's assessment or their experience.

    You believe the earth is warmer? Based on what? is it what you have been told or have you evaluated and tested the underlying science.? for example what is the earth's average temperature? What time frame is used? What methods are employed? Have those methods been employed consistently over time? What method of measurement do you subscribe to, why one over others? What is the margin of error? Why is there a margin of error? What is being measured? You can not answer these questions - your position is based on faith! Faith in others. Blind faith.

    Do you know all we are measuring is air temperatures and surface water temperatures - and on that basis you buy into the conclusion that man is causing the globe to warm?


    I assumed you would avoid answers. I believe theories of evolution can be dangerous - when not understood.

    No.

    Yes.
    Yes.
    Yes.

    No. I believe we have gotten bigger. I believe skin tone and a few other superficial characteristics adapts to climate. I believe that fundamentally we are what we have always been. I think those who subscribe to the notion that humans can evolve into a superior form of some type or that we have in the past are a major concern. I think those who want to genetically engineer the perfect baby are immoral. Am I to assume you disagree with my views?[/quote][/quote]

    And there is no evidence that humans have been anything other than what we are. My religious view is more fact based than your blind faith in evolution theories regarding humans!
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
  10. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    You need to understand the difference between the fact that evolution exists and the fact that we don't know many of the whys and hows. This is the issue with any scientific theory. We understand some things, we don't understand a lot of things. Regardless, evolution is a fact. You can't disprove facts. Facts by definition are things that actually occur. Evolution occurs. It's been proven. You cannot debate the existence of evolution, only certain aspects of what we do with these facts and the questions that come with them.

    If you're curious enough, you can observe the evolution of fruit flies in a relatively short period.

    If you're not that dedicated, perhaps just read this: Examples of evolution happening right now - Business Insider

    These questions are answerable, but I don't have the time or the space to answer them here. If you deny human activity has an impact on climate change, nothing I post on TFP this afternoon with change your mind.

    Are you familiar with the greenhouse effect? Do you know the impact of deforestation and burning fossil fuels on the greenhouse effect?

    Shall I assume one or more of the following?

    1) You do not believe in the greenhouse effect.
    2) You do not believe the greenhouse effect can change.
    3) You do not believe that changes in the greenhouse effect can warm the planet to a measurable degree.
    4) You do not believe that changes in the greenhouse effect can warm the planet to a degree that has negative consequences to health and well-being.
    5) You do not believe that deforestation has an impact (or significant impact) on the greenhouse effect.
    6) You do not believe that burning fossil fuels has an impact (or significant impact) on the greenhouse effect.
    7) You do not believe that humans cause deforestation.
    8) You do not believe that humans burn fossil fuels.

    I'm not afraid to answer questions when the questions make sense.

    We appeared on the planet as fully formed humans? God did it, right? We just plopped down right beside the Neanderthals. (Or did we come first according to your view?)

    Look, I haven't really said anything about the origin of human beings. All I'm trying to do is explain to you that evolution is a thing. Like, a true thing.

    Um, that's kind of where we are now. Do you know of many other species on earth nearly as superior in intelligence and generalism (capable of great environmental fitness)?

    Genetic engineering is possible because of evolution, but I do believe that there are moral considerations when using it.

    There are good things that can come out of genetic engineering and selective breeding.

    Take my dog, for example. The Havanese is hilarious. I consider him one of my best friends. He wouldn't have been possible (okay, more accurately, likely) if it weren't for the mechanisms described under the theory of evolution.

    Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    What facts are included in your religious view? The biblical record?

    I don't have blind faith about human evolution. I have education. The big problem between us is that I have the advantage of being educated in a topic you are relatively ignorant about. I wouldn't claim to know much about Christianity (or monotheism in general), and I know I could leave that to you.

    If you want to have a real conversation about evolutionary science, I could recommend a few popular books aimed at a general readership. They're actually quite entertaining.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015
  11. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Read what I have written. I agree we have verifiable proof that species have evolved. What is in dispute goes beyond that. What I have questioned is cross species evolution and specifically evidence regarding human evolution as it relates to cross species evolution. I do not dispute that humans have evolved relative to superficial characteristics as humans have adapted to life in different areas of the globe. However, I am strong in my views that all humans have been and are equal. I do not believe humans will evolve into something other than what we are. People who believe humans can evolve into something other than what we are are dangerous.


    Again, read what I have written. I do not dispute that humans can have a short-term impact on micro-climates. A "greenhouse" by definition is a micro-climate. My position is that on a macro, long-term basis human activity is immaterial relative to other much ore impact-fill factors. Can you not see the difference in my view and the characterization commonly held by climate change zealots of those like me who have some question and do not believe the issue is settled.

    Do you? Deforestation is not a new phenomenon. Forrest fires and other natural occurrences can result is micro-levels of deforestation - nature responds!

    No, don't assume anything. Read what I write, if you have a question ask.

    You ask the wrong question. A greenhouse effect is one thing, what you seem to want to know is if humans can create a global greenhouse. I do not humans can have a long-term impact on global climate. Co2 levels will go up and they will go down - in the long-term nature makes adjustments for varying levels of Co2 in the atmosphere.
    See the above.

    We have evidence that species have gone extinct due to climate changes. I believe humans have an ability to adapt. On a micro-level some people can be harmed, other people can benefit. For example the way California is managing water resources (making micro-climate changes, i.e. growing food on desert land) will/has had a negative impact on some while benefiting others.

    See above.

    Not in the long-term or on a macro basis. But, for example volcanic activity can have a short-term impact on climate the same as excessive man produced air pollutants.
    I believe that we can be better stewards of our natural resources than we currently are. Today, my expectation is that re-planting occur at a sustainable relative to using forest resources.
     
  13. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    @Aceventura

    I obviously read what you write. (Though I probably shouldn't.) I ask questions because I don't want to assume. Your positions on this topic lack cogency. You point out that you don't want me to assume and that I should ask questions (which is mostly what I've done with you lately), but then you say I ask the wrong question.

    It's not a question of whether humans can "create a global greenhouse." The greenhouse effect is natural phenomenon of earth. That's how earth is. How the greenhouse effect changes, and what has an impact on these changes, is what's in question.

    Between that and your concern about the "dangerous idea that humans could evolve into something other than what we are" demonstrates to me quite clearly that you a) lack a basic understanding of the science regarding evolution and global warming, and b) are distracted by misunderstandings of each to the extent that you assume that people who "support" evolution and global warming believe certain things that they actually don't.

    I'm not going to waste any time describing to you what the greenhouse effect actually is and how it actually works. I'm not going to explain to you the implications of evolution on anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) in relation to, say, Neanderthals and Homo erectus.

    I don't expect everyone to have a basic understanding of the science behind human evolution, nor do I expect everyone to believe it to be true. However, we cannot have a conversation about it on a certain level (i.e., beyond religious views of evolution) without rather quickly hitting a brick wall.

    Maybe we should scale back a bit to the intent of this thread. I will reiterate a bit and maybe just generally state what I think: I think it's dangerous to have people in power (policymakers) who undermine, disregard, or otherwise attack what is broadly accepted as fact.

    Evolution is a fact. It should be taught in public schools. To not teach evolution at even a basic level in grade school is not only anti-scientific; it's a travesty of education. Furthermore, teaching creationism alongside evolution as an alternative view or model is also anti-scientific and a travesty of education. Teaching a religious concept as an alternative to a scientific theory is ridiculous and would only serve to confuse and undermine the facts-based teaching. It would be like teaching alchemy as an alternative view to the basic concepts of chemistry. It would be like teaching the geocentric model of the universe as an alternative to what we now know about our solar system and beyond.

    Human-influenced global warming is a fact. We should be addressing it on all levels of government. It's not a question of whether humans are contributing to the trend of warming; it's a matter of realizing that it's quite possible human activity is the greatest contributor to the trend. Denying human-influenced global warming only acts as a distraction, a barrier, to doing something about it before it has devastating consequences.

    You likely disagree. That's fine. I see my views as relatively uncontroversial outside of a fundamentalist religious context.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2015
  14. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    It is your position that lacks cogency. You seem to consistently fail to think your positions through. You seem to fail to consider all factors affecting an issue.

    I was specific in reference to your vague question regarding if I believe in the greenhouse effect? That was not your question. I believe in the greenhouse effect. In fact, I have created small greenhouses - I know very well how and why they work.

    Now you confuse me. I have no idea of what your point is as it relates to man made global climate change. Perhaps others understand and can help me or perhaps you can clarify - you often fail to respond to simple questions regarding your views or give simple clarifications without changing the topic.

    I know how people interpret and have used this "science". For example - blacks are inferior as blacks are more closely related to apes than whites are. this is dangerous. Why don;t you see that?

    If you believe in theories of evolution how do you reconcile your view with human equality and and the natural selection that is expected to occur supporting human evolution? Or, is it your view that human evolution has ended? Where do you go with the theory of evolution? It is my faith based belief that we are what we are. What is your belief what is it based on?


    How do you know?
     
  15. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I'm just going to zero in on this because it's very telling.

    The hypotheses arising out of social Darwinism have not held up to the rigours of the scientific method. The fact that you have the gall (or the ignorance) to bring this up amongst the other dross as some kind of criticism of theories whose hypotheses have held up tells me that I should stop discussing this topic with you completely.
     
  16. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Are you taking the position that Social Darwinism is not a scientific theory? Why or why not?

    Are we to ignore what I consider a bastardization of real provable evolutionary science?

    How can you discuss scientific theories of evolution and ignore the dangers of Social Darwinism?

    In my view it is your gall or your ignorance that is troubling. It would have been very easy for you to simply address the issue and move on. I don't think you have seriously thought your views on evolution through. Sorry. Perhaps it is best to reflect rather than responding.
     
  17. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    You mean the theory that "blacks are inferior and are more closely related to apes than whites are"? [Humans are apes (Hominidae), by the way, but I know what you mean.] I haven't seen any resources pointing this out as an accepted scientific theory. Have you?

    There is debate as to how close social Darwinism relates to Darwin's work directly. Is that what you want to explore? I don't know where you're going with this. Are you trying to disprove human evolution by pointing out the same concepts explored by Nazis and imperial Britain? You can't disprove facts.

    You can address both if you want. But what is your point? Should we ignore or hide away the science behind human evolution because of what the Nazis and imperial Britain did?

    I've merely stated facts and that we should acknowledge facts both in terms of education and environmental policy. If facts are troubling to you, then perhaps you should do some soul-searching.

    My view on evolution (as it pertains here anyway) is merely that we should teach it. What's so troubling about teaching people biological facts?

    We're obviously not on the same page here. What gall do I have about insisting on acknowledging facts? What's ignorant about wanting to acknowledge facts?
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2015
  18. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    Location:
    North
    The fact is countries that refuse to put up with this silliness and teach their kids the facts and not bullshit are killing us in the sciences.
    In a few short years they will be the ones making all the advances and we will be the third world.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2015
  19. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    This is hilarious until you realize that three-quarters of Germany's electricity is generated by renewable sources. (Renewable sources in the U.S. produce less than 15% of electricity.)

    Poll: Only Germans Think They Are Helping to Fix Global Warming

    Also I found this interesting. (Not so much hilarious.)

    Evolution Education in Muslim States: Iran and Saudi Arabia Compared | Elise Burton - Academia.edu
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2015
  20. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    Location:
    North


    Interesting that Iran has a less religiously damaged education system than the Saudis.
    We always get the impression that they are the crazed, religious fanatics but that's not completely the case as the article pointed out.
    Their attitudes are the result of us fucking with with them for years politically but they still keep their more sophisticated identity while the Saudis haven't been, so are able to be entrenched and damaging to their education.