political debate

[drizzt]

on a happier note, lets change the subject.

hmmm what to argue about that wont get to nasty.......

Heres a unique one(and you will be suprised as to my stand on it). Lets delve back into history and argue in hind sight.

Americas involvement in Vietnam and Korea. What are your thoughts and opinions there.

[Hank]

Do not blindly follw the academic world because they are the "experts". if you only think of something as a fact because someone tells you, you are a blind man being led by a blind man.

Why does the guy leading me have to be blind? No one can come close to knowing everything about all topics - that's why we have experts - but evolution is something I've looked into quite a bit from both sides and I feel very justified defending it. Ask me about string theory and I couldn't talk about it at all. I'm not one who follows blindly.

I love philosiphy(wich i hope i spelled right...). You have to do more than follow to think and to learn. Dont mire yourself down in an absolutist beleif in anything(while yall have pushed me into a corner defending the religious side of things, im actualy a very moderate person........in reality i consider myself an evo-creationist(ie evolution was brought on by creation....)). Be willing to look at both sides of the argument all the time. History suffers because men steel themselves to a possible truth. And yes i refer to reiligion and science having those downfalls..

Well, the cool thing about science is that it doesn't have the downfall you just said it did. There's a scientific method that is as good as it gets for determining truth. It really is good - there's nothing magical about it and it takes no faith. It's only when people don't like the answers that there's a problem.

Regarding being pushed into a corner - I think most people become much more polarized when in a debate - otherwise it just wouldn't be very exciting.

Regarding teaching all creation myths in school - I'd love to see the look on some parents' faces when their kids come home and declare that the world resides in Vishnu's mouth.

Hank.

[drizzt]

like i said mired in a beleif unwilling to move from a dogmatic position. Im not going to argue this anymore because none of you are willing to debate anything, only preach the supposed infalibility of science.

Im not going to discuss this topic on these forums anymore, so let us change the subject. otherwise im going to go back to blasting electronic dear on DH05 and ignoring the thread n general

[Neil Gendzwill]

Facts are only the truth if the person reading them agrees with the line of reasoning used to reach those facts.

No, facts are truth regardless of whether the person reading them agrees. Facts are facts, that is the definition of a fact. Water is a fluid, a solid and a gas depending on temperature and pressure - that's demonstrable fact, but if some nutbar refuses to believe that and instead contends that the ice, fluid water and steam he is shown are 3 different things, that's his problem. It doesn't change the fact. The earth is round, or at least near enough round for purposes of arguing. The existance of a number of people who believe that it's flat despite all evidence does not change the fact that it is round.

Theories are not facts, they are ideas to explain facts. When we get enough facts behind the theories, the theories almost become facts themselves. This is the case with evolution - it's not a fact, it's a theory. But the factual evidence is very, very strong. Now people who don't like evolution as a theory - which are fundamentalist Christians, largely - try to disprove it by coming up with some facts that contradict the theory. This is certainly a valid approach. However, they haven't been able to contradict the theory to anyone except themselves, so the world of science at large still is going with evolution.

Failing to disprove evolution by facts, people argue from logic. The best anti-evolution argument has been that of inherent complexity - life is too complex and wonderful to have sprung up by accident (the watchmaker argument). This has been refuted quite handily in a well-known book called The Blind Watchmaker.

[Hank]

like i said mired in a beleif unwilling to move from a dogmatic position. Im not going to argue this anymore because none of you are willing to debate anything, only preach the supposed infalibility of science.

Im not going to discuss this topic on these forums anymore, so let us change the subject. otherwise im going to go back to blasting electronic dear on DH05 and ignoring the thread n general

Hmm, it is getting boring saying the same things over and over. But, like I said, science requires no faith. In fact, science demands that you look at the facts. It is not dogmatic. Science and religion are two completely different things. Just because some religions are vocally opposed to science in order to forward their agendas doesn't mean that both positions are dogmatic, although the fundamentalists would like you to think so to make their arguments look stronger.

Have fun blasting deer.

Hank.

[samurai999]

Well, the cool thing about science is that it doesn't have the downfall you just said it did. There's a scientific method that is as good as it gets for determining truth. It really is good - there's nothing magical about it and it takes no faith. It's only when people don't like the answers that there's a problem.

Or when something is actually proven wrong or if somebody made a mistake coming to that conclusion.

Well where the hell did we come from (and no, amino acids and cells are not a valid answer) and what the heck are we doing here is one question i'd like the scientific method to answer.

Tim

[Hank]

Or when something is actually proven wrong or if somebody made a mistake coming to that conclusion.

Well where the hell did we come from (and no, amino acids and cells are not a valid answer) and what the heck are we doing here is one question i'd like the scientific method to answer.

Tim

Yeah, sometimes the interpretation of data can be wrong, but usually never earth-shatteringly wrong. Like, the chances of Darwinism being proved wrong, for example, are slim because there is just so much evidence out there.

As far as your questions - the first question can be answered objectively, but it's the primal soup, Darwin thing, so that won't work, eh? The second question is pretty subjective - for example, I've never thought of that as a question because I think there is no answer. We just are. It's like asking why a hurricane formed and caused havok. You can say all sorts of things about wind speeds and water temperatures, but as far as "why?", well, hurricanes just form for no fancy philosophical reason. Life just forms for no fancy philosophical reason.

Hank.

[Fonsz]

Hank
We just are. It's like asking why a hurricane formed and caused havok. You can say all sorts of things about wind speeds and water temperatures, but as far as "why?", well, hurricanes just form for no fancy philosophical reason. Life just forms for no fancy philosophical reason.

Hear hear. I found the last sentence very philosophical and comforting. I couldn't have said it better.

[drizzt]

Life just forms for no fancy philosophical reason.

Hank.

good enough for me. well leave it at that on that aspect of the argument.

btw go see hitch hikers guide to the galaxy, its bloody hilarious....

[samurai999]

As far as your questions - the first question can be answered objectively, but it's the primal soup, Darwin thing, so that won't work, eh? The second question is pretty subjective - for example, I've never thought of that as a question because I think there is no answer. We just are. It's like asking why a hurricane formed and caused havok. You can say all sorts of things about wind speeds and water temperatures, but as far as "why?", well, hurricanes just form for no fancy philosophical reason. Life just forms for no fancy philosophical reason.

Hank.

Well the sceintific method doesn't have an answer for that? The reason for us existing? If you say something just "forms" without some form of definitive reason, isn't that a violation of the scientific method?

Well i guess i'm just not satisfied with the answer "we're here just because". Usually scientists aren't satisfied with that type of solution. In terms of the primal soup... Where did the primal soup come from? While we're at it.. Why did the Big bang happen? Actually one of the satellites i'm working on is the replacement to Hubble so maybe we can find out when, where and how, but as for why? I don't know if science can answer that.

Tim

[Fonsz]

Why did the Big bang happen? Actually one of the satellites i'm working on is the replacement to Hubble so maybe we can find out when, where and how, but as for why? I don't know if science can answer that.

Tim

Science can explain a lot but the "why?" Question should in my opinion be left alone or left to religion. If one is not satisfied with the answer "we are here because" then you will be on a journey that neither science nor philosophy can cover.

[geeunit000]

i think politics are stupid and mean

[drizzt]

they are mean, and mostly stupid, but unfortunatly they govern our lives. The only way to take any control of your freedoms(and the governments who control them) are to stay abrest to political issues. Never close your mind off to anything out of disdain for the topic. A wiser man than me once said(who it was ive forgotten)"Knowledge is power, Either gain it and gain power, or be crushed beneath the waves of ignorance"

[samurai999]

I really don't like politics. Especially the beauracracy (sp?) but we have to deal with them one way or another. The haggling, the filibustering, the utter wasting of time arguing and getting absolutely nothing done. But thats how our society gets its structure (unfortunately) so we just live with it.

Tim