AppleBonker wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:You find clear and convincing evidence that eliminates evolution and backs up literal creationism

I feel I should point out these two are not mutually exclusive. And also there really is no evidence that refutes the theory of creation. However, that is NOT evidence to support it, either.

Yeah, I've been trying to avoid that trap.

IBCoupe wrote:I'm for the elimination of those who believe in creation at the expense of evolution; let's get that out of the way.

Then I'm more than happy to lump you in with Herman Cain.

No brown people in his Cabinet, and no believers in yours. Got it.

Nothing more to say on this topic, your adherence to "absolutes" is quite telling.

AppleBonker wrote:I feel I should point out these two are not mutually exclusive. And also there really is no evidence that refutes the theory of creation. However, that is NOT evidence to support it, either.

Bingo. I'm definitely of that school of thought, pertaining to both macro- and microevolution.

The issue here isn't WHAT you believe (that's yours and I'll defend it). Rather, it's what you try to discount.

As my Pops says, "If you don't know for sure, shut up."

Example: You've got people in the Cabinet who ascribe to MMGW. They base their position on admittedly weak and flawed scientific data. Whether they're ultimately right or not is irrelevant.

The problem President Isaac now faces is, "How do I get all these people out of office when they believe in something that's not disproven, but the evidence for it is certainly not complete either?"

Trap avoidance failed. Miss you buddy.

AZhitman wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:I'm for the elimination of those who believe in creation at the expense of evolution; let's get that out of the way.

Then I'm more than happy to lump you in with Herman Cain.

No brown people in his Cabinet, and no believers in yours. Got it.

Nothing more to say on this topic, your adherence to "absolutes" is quite telling.

Not "no believers," Greg. No "science-deniers." I can only repeat this so many times.

AZhitman wrote:The issue here isn't WHAT you believe (that's yours and I'll defend it). Rather, it's what you try to discount.

Actually, I saw that same point in Isaac's comments. Creationists using that idea (for lack of a better term?) to discount evolution.

I almost have a problem with both...

AZhitman wrote:The problem President Isaac now faces is, "How do I get all these people out of office when they believe in something that's not disproven, but the evidence for it is certainly not complete either?"

It's not a problem at all, Greg. That's not how science works. I don't need to know that evolution is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. All I need to know is that, based on our current understanding of the observable universe, evolution is fact. And it will remain "fact" until we learn something new about the universe that conflicts with it. And then that will be fact.

That's why I wrote that when someone denies evolution, I have a small problem. The small problem is that it's highly unlikely anybody legitimately found evidence that evolution is not true. But it's possible that they did. So the thought in my head, upon hearing that someone denies evolution, is this: "Oh, for crying out loud. Really? Why?" It's that last bit that's important.

When someone uses religion to justify their denial of observable, testable science, then I have a bigger problem. They have decided, "f*** the scientific process. I'm going on what this millenia-old book tells me, and you can't convince me otherwise, no matter what you show me." That's a closed mind. That's someone who believes what they want to believe without considering the possibility that there's more to the universe than they want to think there is.

So the problem isn't that these people reject what consistent, logical thought has developed. It's that they do so without using a consistent, logical thought process. The suppositions of religion are based entirely on things that cannot be observed and cannot be tested. That's fine for morality and philosophy, but it's not fine for science, because that's not how science works. I don't care if my cabinet-members worship Allah or Adonai or Jesus or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't care if they make that the foundation for their personal decisions. It doesn't matter to me in the least. What matters to me is when those beliefs become the basis for policy decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people, not just for First Amendment concerns, but because I think if you're going to make a policy for the world, it ought to take into account measurable facts about the world.

Science and good leadership both require the ability to recognize when you're wrong. While evolution might be wrong, I'm not going to say it is until it's shown to be. And I'm not going to say that religion is equally valid as a measure of the universe simply because people have said so for thousands of years, even though nobody's ever tried to demonstrate it in any way. And I can't vote in everybody's district, so I can't get them out of office. I can only hope that their constituents understand what's wrong with the brains of the people they elect, and vote accordingly.

Yep. +2 for you.

I feel like these are needed, and I don't recall if they've been linked to this thread yet:

IBCoupe wrote:It's not a problem at all, Greg. That's not how science works. I don't need to know that evolution is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. All I need to know is that, based on our current understanding of the observable universe, evolution is fact. And it will remain "fact" until we learn something new about the universe that conflicts with it. And then that will be fact.

Hmmm, I am a scientist/engineer and would want you to be more accurate than this.

There are lots more steps to scientific methods: "observation" -> "hypotheses" - > "theories", etc., ... all the way to "axioms".

Problem is that the common word "fact" can be confusing here - people usually think of "facts" as unchangeable, because of everyday usage, etc.

Yes, I understand the evidence behind evolution, and do believe the theory to be right. But, it ain't an axiom yet. And could be proven wrong in the future. But any new theory ought to fit the observations equally well or better.

IBCoupe wrote:The suppositions of religion are based entirely on things that cannot be observed and cannot be tested. That's fine for morality and philosophy, but it's not fine for science, because that's not how science works. I don't care if my cabinet-members worship Allah or Adonai or Jesus or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't care if they make that the foundation for their personal decisions. It doesn't matter to me in the least. What matters to me is when those beliefs become the basis for policy decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people, not just for First Amendment concerns, but because I think if you're going to make a policy for the world, it ought to take into account measurable facts about the world.

I entirely agree with the position you are taking here.

But would add that If you substitute the word "observations" for "fact", it makes it easier to understand, imho.

This is "Western" scientific methods, by the way. There are more subjective approaches in some other countries.

Z

szh wrote:Yes, I understand the evidence behind evolution, and do believe the theory to be right. But, it ain't an axiom yet. And could be proven wrong in the future. But any new theory ought to fit the facts equally well or better.

Really think it'll be proven wrong? It's hard to imagine what the findings would have to be...

Generally, it Evolution is held to be a fact. It is nearly unanimously held to be a fact among biologists (99.7%+). To say that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, is to understate the true volume of evidence there is.

To be a skeptic is, well... To be quite unique in the field of science.

mattblancarte wrote:

szh wrote:Yes, I understand the evidence behind evolution, and do believe the theory to be right. But, it ain't an axiom yet. And could be proven wrong in the future. But any new theory ought to fit the facts equally well or better.

Really think it'll be proven wrong? It's hard to imagine what the findings would have to be...

Actually, I don't think it will be proven wrong in my lifetime. I agree with you that another theory is unlikely and would need to fit the evidence better.

But, it is still a "Theory of Evolution". And, scientific method says that theories could/might be changed if a better one comes along.

BTW, part of the requirement for Theories to become stronger (into Laws and Axioms) is "prediction". To the best of my knowledge, that has not yet happened with the Theory of Evolution, but I may be wrong(?)

mattblancarte wrote:Generally, it Evolution is held to be a fact. It is nearly unanimously held to be a fact among biologists (99.7%+). To say that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, is to understate the true volume of evidence there is.

To be a skeptic is, well... To be quite unique in the field of science.

Of course, most biologists accept the Theory. And I do too, don't get me wrong!

I am being pedantic about the Western Scientific method labels. And biologists would not use the word "fact" yet.

Z

My issue is with the arrogant discounting of someone's position who just might have insight and experiences that you're not privy to.

I think you're paranoid abut the perceived motivations and impact of said persons, even if they WERE to allow their "ignorance" find its way into policymaking. Hell, we've got a majority of self-proclaimed Christian lawmakers who just happen to be ok with same-sex marriages, for crying out loud.

As such, I choose to be ok with people believing what they want to believe, EVEN if it means they disagree with my belief in Evo-Creationism. That's the epitome of open-mindedness.

You're seeing Pat Robertsons under the bed, and it's silly.

Thanks for the clarification, Z. I'm pretty familiar with all that and was merely using "fact" as shorthand and lay speech. For all intents and purposes, evolution operates in our world as fact. Yes, it could be showed wrong, and that's why I wrote the peculiar phrase "and then that would be fact."

While I applaud your efforts at clarity, that's part of the problem scientists have in the United States (and probably lawyers, too, come to think of it). Instead of saying, "Look, for everything you would ever have to worry about in your life, evolution/gravity/climate change is the absolute truth. That's how the world works. That's it, end of story," scientists have a tendency to talk about all the little remote possibilities that exist as curiosity, and that leads to public doubt and worse, an opportunity for misinformation and "bad science" to take root.

AZhitman wrote:My issue is with the arrogant discounting of someone's position who just might have insight and experiences that you're not privy to.

I think you're paranoid abut the perceived motivations and impact of said persons, even if they WERE to allow their "ignorance" find its way into policymaking. Hell, we've got a majority of self-proclaimed Christian lawmakers who just happen to be ok with same-sex marriages, for crying out loud.

As such, I choose to be ok with people believing what they want to believe, EVEN if it means they disagree with my belief in Evo-Creationism. That's the epitome of open-mindedness.

You're seeing Pat Robertsons under the bed, and it's silly.

While advocating for theocratic policies is a surefire way to lose my support, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm absolutely not afraid of Pat Robertson, as there are plenty of checks on anything he would want to accomplish.

What I'm going on about is more fundamental. The rejection of the scientific method is a rejection of rigid, logical examination. The importance of denouncing faith-over-science policy makers isn't found in what they think as much as it is how they think.

Where the truth is immeasurable, religion is as good a yardstick as anything else. Where the truth is measurable, only an actual yardstick will suffice.

Although I'm absolutely on the side of the effectiveness of the scientific method when practiced in its uncorrupted form, I disagree that it should form the basis for all policy and decisionmaking. Here's why: Sometimes you just have to leap. Sometimes, your GUT has to lead while your heart and head follow. It's like the old axiom "Past performance does not guarantee future results." It's these intuitive, sometimes illogical leaps that enable true innovation. Sometimes baseless faith *is* the lighthouse.

Encryptshun wrote:Although I'm absolutely on the side of the effectiveness of the scientific method when practiced in its uncorrupted form, I disagree that it should form the basis for all policy and decisionmaking. Here's why: Sometimes you just have to leap. Sometimes, your GUT has to lead while your heart and head follow. It's like the old axiom "Past performance does not guarantee future results." It's these intuitive, sometimes illogical leaps that enable true innovation. Sometimes baseless faith *is* the lighthouse.

That's fine. I'm. I'm not saying leaps of faith are terrible. Leaps of faith as a policy maker in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just plain 'tarded, though. Again, the problem isn't the belief, it's the act of ignoring or rejecting reality because it's inconvenient to your belief, and not because you've got observable evidence to the contrary.

And this doesn't lead to uniform policy making, either. I operate under a definition of "fairness" that relies on the observable world. Stebo operates under a definition of "fairness" that relies on abstract philosophy. My tax code seeks to affect people equally, and Stebo's seeks to treat people equally.

And that's okay. If Stebo and I were to agree that "fairness" is measured by the world, then Stebo's advocacy of a tax that ignores the effects of other taxes in the system would be irrational, and that's often how it looks from my perspective.

IBCoupe wrote:Thanks for the clarification, Z. I'm pretty familiar with all that and was merely using "fact" as shorthand and lay speech. For all intents and purposes, evolution operates in our world as fact. Yes, it could be showed wrong, and that's why I wrote the peculiar phrase "and then that would be fact."

Yup, I figured that.

IBCoupe wrote:in what they think as much as it is how they think.

Hmmm ... isn't it tough to tell the difference though? At least to the degree where one could anticipate/predict a way that that person wants to implement a policy?

Z

It's probably tough to tell in most places. Which is why the creationism/evolution thing works as a nifty litmus test for me, because it's one of the few topics where it's impossible to take a certain position and demonstrate an allegience to the scientific process and scientific thought.

I must admit since graduating from college, the topic or science behind the Origins of Earth has rarely been applicable to my work or private life and rarely has ever come up. To be honest, I use more of the crazy math I learned in school, like Euler Circuits, than the science relating to the Origins of the Earth (that I learned in Geology, Biology or Astronomy classes.) So to use it as a benchmark for choosing a Presidential Candidate (as the way they approach say logic or science) seems to me a petty idea. Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go persecute the ‘flat earth’ Application Developers who still code on COBOL (banging rocks together) for using an old and antiquated programming language and denying the technical advances of the past 20 plus years.

I understand about half of the words in that post, but comprehend only about 25% of what you're saying. Use whatever test you need to.

Cold_Zero wrote:Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go persecute the ‘flat earth’ Application Developers who still code on COBOL (banging rocks together) for using an old and antiquated programming language and denying the technical advances of the past 20 plus years.

IBCoupe wrote:I understand about half of the words in that post, but comprehend only about 25% of what you're saying. Use whatever test you need to.

Wait , you don’t live your life according to my paradigm? You are letting me down ‘Sour Kangaroo’ as an example of how one should live their life.

I am glad Encryptshun got the joke.

Feel free to call me Chad if you want.

IBCoupe wrote:I understand about half of the words in that post, but comprehend only about 25% of what you're saying. Use whatever test you need to.

+1

Cold_Zero wrote:I must admit since graduating from college, the topic or science behind the Origins of Earth has rarely been applicable to my work or private life and rarely has ever come up. To be honest, I use more of the crazy math I learned in school, like Euler Circuits, than the science relating to the Origins of the Earth (that I learned in Geology, Biology or Astronomy classes.) So to use it as a benchmark for choosing a Presidential Candidate (as the way they approach say logic or science) seems to me a petty idea. Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go persecute the ‘flat earth’ Application Developers who still code on COBOL (banging rocks together) for using an old and antiquated programming language and denying the technical advances of the past 20 plus years.

+1



Z

heliochrome85 wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:I understand about half of the words in that post, but comprehend only about 25% of what you're saying. Use whatever test you need to.

+1

Hey Tariq,
Let me know how summer camp goes at the Boys Islamic Pan-African Legion this year. I hear it is under new management.
Bud

That made me think of Life of Brian.

People's Front of Judea
Judean People's Front
Judean Popular People's Front
Campaign for a Free Gallilee
Popular Front of Judea

Cold_Zero wrote: Hey Tariq,
Let me know how summer camp goes at the Boys Islamic Pan-African Legion this year. I hear it is under new management.
Bud

all i know is that the king of kings has now joined his idol, the king of pop. WE ALL MUST MOURN THE LOSS OF SUCH GLORIOUS FASHION

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0 ... 60,00.html

Cold_Zero wrote:Wait , you don’t live your life according to my paradigm? You are letting me down ‘Sour Kangaroo’ as an example of how one should live their life.

I am glad Encryptshun got the joke.

Spectacularly-played.

I had a similar retort that just wouldn't come together cleanly.... Probably because I was using a car analogy.

Nicely done, Sir Bud.

Cold_Zero wrote:Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go persecute the ‘flat earth’ Application Developers who still code on COBOL (banging rocks together) for using an old and antiquated programming language and denying the technical advances of the past 20 plus years.

lol from what I understand, COBOL devs can rake in some of the highest salaries in the field. I dunno if it's worth dealing with the syntax, though.

I'll stick with my JavaScript, PHP, and Ruby.

Is this why we now have the sub section, Science!?