US Politics

Of course neither candidates can solve the economic issue, but they can HELP to solve it for the future leaders of America. It's total bullshit that McCain "claims" he can solve the TRILLION DOLLAR deficit in just a four year term.
Bullshit.

I'm so glad Obama shot him that look, the moderator even had to repeat it because he knew it was bullshit.

Zootm>"That's not the scientific definition, this is (from Wiktionary):

> A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena.
or
> A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview."



I love how you left the line right before that out....(from Wiktionary)

>an unproven conjecture

So that is your source, stating that it is UNPROVEN!

Zootm>Our understanding of gravity, for example, is a theory. Evolution is also a fact. There is as much evidence to prove evolution as fact as there is to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun, and that the Moon orbits the Earth.

Evolution is NOT fact! There is some stuff out there that can suggest evolution(on a big scale) but there is absolutely nothing to prove evolution.

Zootm>Most people who have any understanding of biology disagree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion. The distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, taken to mean what you mean there, is only ever talked about by disingenuous creationists. It is not a scientific distinction; the scientific definition of macroevolution has been observed in the past.

So in science, what do they mean by macro- and micro- evolution?

Do you have any examples/evidence of macro-evolution being seen observed?

Zootm(Friday)>Intelligent design is not a theory, it's an atrocious pseudoscientific grab-bag. It has barely any consistent formulation (the assertion that "Intelligent Design" is just one movement or just one theory is horribly flawed - it covers a wide array of assertions which share barely any attributes), and is at it's core the Teleological argument rephrased as an argument against evolution.

I have never once claimed Intelligent design to be scientific. I believe that science can be, an is used to prove some biblical stories. As far as the original design, that is all faith based. And as far as I know, "creationists" do not believe the creation to be scientific.

As far as "...core the Teleological argument rephrased as an argument against evolution." Yes, I do believe that God created man. But I do not use the bible saying God created man as a reason for arguing evolution. I use science, and lots of scientists and biologists use science to argue evolution. As much as it may boggle your mind, there are scientists out there who do not believe in evolution and see scientific flaws in it.

Zootm>Obviously nothing is completely provable (the existence of the universe before the instant which you're currently experiencing, for example, may just be an advanced construction appearing to have a past), but these pedantic arguments are why science draws these distinctions to distance itself from philosophy and religion.

Science does not like to distance itself from philosophy and religion because of that, they distance themselves from them because every now and then, philosophy and religion point out a flaw in science, which science doesn't like, therefore act like that flaw simply doesn't exist.

McCain didn't say he was going to "solve" the deficit, he said he could balance it... in other words, get it to where it was. And he is going to do it without taxing anyone unlike Obama. During a recession the last thing you need to do is raise taxes.

Obama isn't going to raise taxes, at least not for 95% of america. He is going to go through all the stupid programs we created a few decades ago and then forgot about and shut the unnececary ones down, giving us ALL THAT extra money.

And McCain said he was okay with having the war go on for a century! That is hardly an good economic plan. All our money going to feeding the soldiers and the weapons. We are the only country in the UN that says its "good" to stay in this war. I think we should take some head from the UK and everyone ELSE and slowly withdrawl from the war [like Obama wants to do] which will give us all THAT extra money as well.

Well said Dis. And anyway politicians say these things and it takes years to put them into practise, or it was just a lie.

Palin kept saying 'victory' in Iraq, you know winning. When it's not like a war that's been before, we're not as directly affected as in other wars, no one really thinks about it that much. It's that competitive thing which comes across as arogance.

These quotes will probably be in a r-r-r-r-raaandom order.

Cameron S.> So that is your source, stating that it is UNPROVEN!

When dictionaries have numerous definitions of a word preceded by numbers, they are typically distinct definitions. I find it preposterous that you can write fluently and not read a dictionary.

The scientific word for the concept you're attributing to theory is hypothesis.

Cameron S.> Evolution is NOT fact! There is some stuff out there that can suggest evolution(on a big scale) but there is absolutely nothing to prove evolution.

What's wrong with the fossil record, in your view? I'm actually interested. Of course, in science, it's always a refining action; nothing is ever considered "true" in science, but there is a point

Cameron S.> Do you have any examples/evidence of macro-evolution being seen observed?

Microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, in the most refined theory so far. And species changes have been observed several times in the past, examples being in Tilapia.

Cameron S.> As much as it may boggle your mind, there are scientists out there who do not believe in evolution and see scientific flaws in it.

There are "scientists" out there who believe just about any crazy thing you can state. I'm aware of the arguments against evolution, though, they're just not thought of as serious by any respected scientific body. One of the core tenets of science is that it will change if it is proven wrong, however; if there's weight to these claims, it'll change. It's just that nobody has yet made any argument that makes any scientific point.

There's a good page on Wikipedia with the actual arguments against evolution though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

Cameron S.> I have never once claimed Intelligent design to be scientific.

I think that I wrote that before you said anything? Certainly it wasn't directed at you; it's just what people commonly try to get taught in science class alongside real science, to the harm of those being educated.

Cameron S.> I believe that science can be, an is used to prove some biblical stories.

I've no doubt. Most religions can have much of their stories validated with the techniques we have of discovering the past; there's little doubt that Jesus or Mohammed existed.

Cameron S.> And as far as I know, "creationists" do not believe the creation to be scientific.

...which is precisely why it should not be taught alongside science.

Cameron S.> Science does not like to distance itself from philosophy and religion because of that, they distance themselves from them because every now and then, philosophy and religion point out a flaw in science, which science doesn't like, therefore act like that flaw simply doesn't exist.

Philosophy which alters science becomes science; all science was once philosophy! Religion, however, does not. I personally don't like the way in which some scientists are attempting to attack religion, but it would be unfair to say that they were not driven to it by religion attacking them.

Religion should not try to be science, and science should not try to be religion. Science only concerns itself with things that can be validated, and religion considers itself only with things that cannot. That does not make either of them a bad thing, but conflating the two is a horrifying mistake.

In a related note I suspect our views are irreconcilable and we should probably stop clogging up this thread

zootm> These quotes will probably be in a r-r-r-r-raaandom order.

Lol. I can say the same about this post.

First of all, let me make it clear. I am not arguing creation vs science. I am not even necessarily arguing creation vs evolution. I am arguing evolution vs science. I do not believe evolution to have real scientific basis. I think you could even consider evolution to fall under the classification of religion/belief if you wanted it to.

zootm> When dictionaries have numerous definitions of a word preceded by numbers, they are typically distinct definitions. I find it preposterous that you can write fluently and not read a dictionary.

I understand that. What are you suggesting that I did wrong?

zootm> What's wrong with the fossil record, in your view? I'm actually interested. Of course, in science, it's always a refining action; nothing is ever considered "true" in science, but there is a point

For one, the fossil record does not prove evolution. Two, it has been proven that fossils can form very fast. It has also interesting how there way of telling how old something is has been proved inaccurate, and yet they still use it.

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/Paleontologist

zootm> Microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, in the most refined theory so far. And species changes have been observed several times in the past, examples being in Tilapia.

Whether you want to look at the two of them as the same thing or not, it doesn't change the fact that "evolution"(on a big scale) has not been observed. The examples of Tilapia would be evolution on a small scale.

zootm> Certainly it wasn't directed at you; it's just what people commonly try to get taught in science class alongside real science, to the harm of those being educated.

I will agree with you on the first half of that. I do not think creation should even be mentioned in the science class, after all, it is not science. As far as it harming those who are being educated, I don't agree. Before you mentioned something similar, and are entitled to have that opinion. I believe that other options being brought up in class would not harm any ones mind. I believe that all it would do, is encourage critical thinking.

Although I do not believe creation should be mentioned in a science class, I feel the same way on the matter of evolution. I believe that it can be suggested, and can be said that some scientists believe in evolution. What I strongly disagree with, and what gets me started on this whole issue, is the fact that some biology books/teachers will state that evolution is a FACT. I would not have as much of a problem if they were teaching the scientific ideas behind the parts of evolution that can be proven. But I do not agree with them teaching it as fact.

zootm> I personally don't like the way in which some scientists are attempting to attack religion, but it would be unfair to say that they were not driven to it by religion attacking them.

I agree, and do not feel as either should be attacking each other. As far as whether religion attacked science first, or if science attacked religion firsts, I don't know, and I simply do not care.

zootm> Religion should not try to be science, and science should not try to be religion. Science only concerns itself with things that can be validated, and religion considers itself only with things that cannot. That does not make either of them a bad thing, but conflating the two is a horrifying mistake.

I also agree. I do have a question though, can evolution be validated?

zootm> In a related note I suspect our views are irreconcilable and we should probably stop clogging up this thread

Agreed. But I do feel strongly about the matter, and would be more than happy to discuss it elsewhere.

awww darn. This was interesting to read


May I suggest [as I probably have already] going to Yahoo Answers, Society and culture > Religion and Spiriturality board.

These topics are often discussed exactly like that.

Just a couple of loose ends...

Cameron S.> I understand that. What are you suggesting that I did wrong?

I listed the two definitions marked "(sciences)", which were the definitions to which I'm referring. You picked one of the other definitions, which is essentially unrelated, and cited it as a counterexample to what I'd said, which it's obviously not. Given your general eloquence it seemed a lot like wilful ignorance.

Cameron S.> I agree, and do not feel as either should be attacking each other. As far as whether religion attacked science first, or if science attacked religion firsts, I don't know, and I simply do not care.

It'd be fair enough to say it's meaningless, although it explains the vindictive-seeming actions of people like Richard Dawkins, I think. They were attacked a lot before they "snapped".

Cameron S.> I also agree. I do have a question though, can evolution be validated?

Evolution has been validated, in scientific terms. The evidence is so overwhelmingly in its favour that it's considered validated, in the same way as the theory of relativity.

Cameron S.> Agreed. But I do feel strongly about the matter, and would be more than happy to discuss it elsewhere.

I'm not sure what that'd achieve!

um ok...

anyways! vote obama!

because mccain is gonna KEEL OVER soon, and then palin will be in office, and do you really want her representing women as the first woman president?

actually, thats not the only reason, but thats one

hurry up and friggin vote already!

Palin doesn't even know what a newspaper is.

OBAMA WON BABY!
<3333

yeah-yeah!! but imma get HELL for being an obama supporter in texas. its very difficult.

OBAMA WON w00t!!