3132 users online now!    CONTACT US | ADVERTISE | REGISTER       

About this Page -- This is a discussion on Who is really anti-science? Page 11. within the forum Politics. ...

Go Back   VolNation > >

View Poll Results: If I add a poll to this article, will you vote in it?
Yes 16 53.33%
No 14 46.67%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-21-2011, 05:03 PM   #151
2ironVol
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2011
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Posts: 1,846
Likes: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by joevol320 View Post
there is not one bit if evolution that is supported by fact. However, there are countless of evolution theories that have been shot down.
Actually, the theory of evolution has tons of facts to support it.

You might want to read something besides the Washington Times or listen to someone besides Rush and Sean Hannity.

Or maybe you should simply pick up a college textbook for the first time in your life
2ironVol is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 11-21-2011, 05:10 PM   #152
VOLatile
BRB Pooping
 
VOLatile's Avatar

Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 14,276
Likes: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ironVol View Post
Actually, the theory of evolution has tons of facts to support it.

You might want to read something besides the Washington Times or listen to someone besides Rush and Sean Hannity.

Or maybe you should simply pick up a college textbook for the first time in your life
Elementary science textbook would be a good suggestion to begin with.
VOLatile is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 11-21-2011, 05:32 PM   #153
2ironVol
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2011
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Posts: 1,846
Likes: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by VOLatile View Post
Elementary science textbook would be a good suggestion to begin with.
You're right of course
2ironVol is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 11-22-2011, 08:52 AM   #154
volved
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2011
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Posts: 185
Likes: 20
Climategate 2.0

A new email dump occurred last night:

Climategate 2.0 the Air Vent


The whistle-blower's manifesto:

/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
volved is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 11-22-2011, 09:23 AM   #155
therealUT
Rational Thought Allowed?

Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Location: Brookside, KC
Posts: 29,134
Likes: 6,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by joevol320 View Post
there is not one bit if evolution that is supported by fact. However, there are countless of evolution theories that have been shot down.
Can you define what you mean by 'fact'?
therealUT is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 11-22-2011, 02:58 PM   #156
PKT_VOL
Veni, Vidi, Vici
 
PKT_VOL's Avatar

Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 14,725
Likes: 7,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by joevol320 View Post
hey gaytoratile. if I told that i took the pieces of a rolex watch and put them in dryer, turned the dryer on, let the dryer run, stopped the dryer and I pulled out a fully functioning rolex. you would think i was a complete liar or insane.

yet you think that's how we were created, by random chance. you think our dna, protein chains, gene maps all happened by some randomness with no type of design. you justify by it by saying it took billions of years to get everything just right. that is what is sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joevol320 View Post
well it's not fair, because i have all the pieces of the watch.
Your analogy, your rules, I'll play ball. First, you are taking apart a Rolex. I don't know the first thing about fashion but I am pretty sure Rolex is about as good as it gets for a wrist watch or at least close to it. Now, would you concede that a Rolex's chief function is to keep track of time? If so, do you think the Rolex just appeared out of thin air from a master watchmaker? Keeping track of the time, or shall I more accurately say, the perception of time has been task for civilizations since the beginning of written human history. Did they start out with a Rolex? Of course not! Even a crappy wristwatch? Not even close. They first had inaccurate calenders and very primitive sundials. It wasn't until many millennia of trial and error that the Rolex came about. Now, which theory does the history of the Rolex (time keeping in general) does this sound most similar to: creationism or evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by joevol320 View Post
evolution doesn't have any type of materials, everything just came from nothing. you're right it isn't a fair comparison.
These are from my posts in the question about Christianity thread. I did not feel like rewriting a response to either of your comments. So here are my re-posted responses.

Quote:
The area of abiogenesis (the jump from inorganic life to biological life) has not been a major concern for me though. I believe the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1952 conclusively explains (for me) the conditions and materials available for such a jump. *Side note: all of which are found elsewhere in the universe, just some food for thought.
Quote:
To say that everything or anything came from nothing is disingenuous at best. As Hume would say, there are no impressions within our known universe of matter being created or destroyed, only conserved or transferred into energy E=MC2. Therefore, without impressions (sensations) there can be no idea about something being created from nothing. The Conservation of Matter is in agreement with the Big Bang theory. The point of matter in the Big Bang was infinity (loose definition/interpretation for me) massive. The mass was always there, just with way more gravitational pull. A newer theory (one I like better) states that our universe was created from another universe. Much like how new stars and planets are created from old dying stars which eventually collapse in on themselves before exploding violently; thus giving birth to new stars and planets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joevol320 View Post
really evolution is still happening? give me proof? yes you are ignorant on the subject.
Happens everyday in the lab. Hell we have completely made a new species of bacteria from scratch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joevol320 View Post
if you want a pretty interesting speaking on this watch this series.

Chuck Missler - Genesis - Session 03 - (Ch. 1.6-8) Day Two

since most of you on here are some of the most intelligent people on the planet, you guys should have no problem understanding this.

there are about 7 or 8 days of speaking. since all you libs are so open minded, then you should have no problems watching this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joevol320 View Post
when you're talking about evolving from the dna, protein levels it is a proven fact that the odds of them evolving with design are impossible. the odds are too great.

Chuck Missler - Genesis - Session 07 - (Ch. 1.24-31) Day Six
I actually took the time to watch both videos (I skipped the theology and only focused on the science). Probably the only VN member who ever will. So don't say non-crazy conservative members are unable to be open minded.

The first one was a complete waste of time. The second one was actually fairly decent although he made a few terrible conjectures. He makes excellent points about the Golden Rectangle, the Golden Spiral, the Fibonacci Sequence, and the complexity of the human body. Addtionally, I was elated that be talked about Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality. I am reading his book and find it utterly fascinating. Unfortunately, none of those points even begin to refute evolution nor endorse creationism.

Lastly, there was no mention of DNA or protein levels in either video you posted. However, I will give you forewarning; if you proceed to bring biochemistry into this debate, you will get absolutely owned.
PKT_VOL is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 12-03-2011, 09:09 AM   #157
gsvol
Senior Member
 
gsvol's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Posts: 14,180
Likes: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ironVol View Post
Actually, the theory of evolution has tons of facts to support it.

You might want to read something besides the Washington Times or listen to someone besides Rush and Sean Hannity.

Or maybe you should simply pick up a college textbook for the first time in your life
So if it is in a college textbook it is irrefutable fact?

APE-PARENTLY Evolution theories are still evolving - YouTube

Last edited by gsvol; 12-03-2011 at 09:44 AM..
gsvol is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 12-03-2011, 09:24 AM   #158
PKT_VOL
Veni, Vidi, Vici
 
PKT_VOL's Avatar

Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 14,725
Likes: 7,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsvol View Post
So if it is in a college textbook it is irrefutable fact?

There are very few irrefutable facts period.

However, reputable source...college textbook? Yes. Obscure, ultra-conservative blog? Not so much.
PKT_VOL is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 12-03-2011, 09:55 AM   #159
VOLatile
BRB Pooping
 
VOLatile's Avatar

Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 14,276
Likes: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKT_VOL View Post
There are very few irrefutable facts period.

However, reputable source...college textbook? Yes. Obscure, ultra-conservative blog? Not so much.
Gs obviously doesn't understand academic or scientific standards.
VOLatile is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 12-05-2011, 10:48 AM   #160
KiffinKiller
We are Delusional
 
KiffinKiller's Avatar

Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Location: Mankato, MN
Posts: 4,447
Likes: 76
I'd like to think he knows the difference between a published journal and a blog created in a basement.
__________________
KiffinKiller is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 12-05-2011, 11:11 AM   #161
MaxamusXIII
can't spell/dosen't care
 
MaxamusXIII's Avatar

Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Location: just off the high road (Nooga)
Posts: 34,538
Likes: 7,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKT_VOL View Post
Your analogy, your rules, I'll play ball. First, you are taking apart a Rolex. I don't know the first thing about fashion but I am pretty sure Rolex is about as good as it gets for a wrist watch or at least close to it. Now, would you concede that a Rolex's chief function is to keep track of time? If so, do you think the Rolex just appeared out of thin air from a master watchmaker? Keeping track of the time, or shall I more accurately say, the perception of time has been task for civilizations since the beginning of written human history. Did they start out with a Rolex? Of course not! Even a crappy wristwatch? Not even close. They first had inaccurate calenders and very primitive sundials. It wasn't until many millennia of trial and error that the Rolex came about. Now, which theory does the history of the Rolex (time keeping in general) does this sound most similar to: creationism or evolution?



These are from my posts in the question about Christianity thread. I did not feel like rewriting a response to either of your comments. So here are my re-posted responses.







Happens everyday in the lab. Hell we have completely made a new species of bacteria from scratch.




I actually took the time to watch both videos (I skipped the theology and only focused on the science). Probably the only VN member who ever will. So don't say non-crazy conservative members are unable to be open minded.

The first one was a complete waste of time. The second one was actually fairly decent although he made a few terrible conjectures. He makes excellent points about the Golden Rectangle, the Golden Spiral, the Fibonacci Sequence, and the complexity of the human body. Addtionally, I was elated that be talked about Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality. I am reading his book and find it utterly fascinating. Unfortunately, none of those points even begin to refute evolution nor endorse creationism.

Lastly, there was no mention of DNA or protein levels in either video you posted. However, I will give you forewarning; if you proceed to bring biochemistry into this debate, you will get absolutely owned.

I got buried at work and forgot we had a good conversation going over there. I owe you a response and will get that done sometime this week.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak View Post
Shaddup slice!
MaxamusXIII is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 12-08-2011, 05:35 AM   #162
gsvol
Senior Member
 
gsvol's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Posts: 14,180
Likes: 298
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Sea level rise is accelerating...to the downside



Quote:
Following a long delay and some controversial "adjustments," the University of Colorado sea level satellite data was recently released. A plot of the rate of sea level rise shows a stable rate between 2003 and 2007, and declining rates since 2007.


Quote:
Sea levels have been rising since the peak of the last ice age 22,000 years ago and have been decelerating over the past 8,000 years.
It is plain to see that there are those who would pervert science to suit their own political agenda.

More:

Yet Another Incorrect IPCC Assessment: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase — MasterResource

Quote:
Another error in the influential reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports has been identified. This one concerns the rate of expansion of sea ice around Antarctica.

While not an issue for estimates of future sea level rise (sea ice is floating ice which does not influence sea level), a significant expansion of Antarctic sea ice runs counter to climate model projections. As the errors in the climate change “assessment” reports from the IPCC mount, its aura of scientific authority erodes, and with it, the justification for using their findings to underpin national and international efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

Some climate scientists have distanced themselves from the IPCC Working Group II’s (WGII’s) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, prefering instead the stronger hard science in the Working Group I (WGI) Report—The Physical Science Basis. Some folks have even gone as far as saying that no errors have been found in the WGI Report and the process in creating it was exemplary.

Such folks are in denial.

As I document below, WGI did a poor job in regard to Antarctic sea ice trends. Somehow, the IPCC specialists assessed away a plethora of evidence showing that the sea ice around Antarctica has been significantly increasing—a behavior that runs counter to climate model projections of sea ice declines—and instead documented only a slight, statistically insignificant rise.

How did this happen? The evidence suggests that IPCC authors were either being territorial in defending and promoting their own work in lieu of other equally legitimate (and ultimately more correct) findings, were being guided by IPCC brass to produce a specific IPCC point-of-view, or both.

The handling of Antarctic sea ice is, unfortunately, not an isolated incident in the IPCC reports, but is simply one of many examples in which portions of the peer-reviewed scientific literature were cast aside, or ignored, so that a particular point of view—the preconceived IPCC point of view—could be either maintained or forwarded.
gsvol is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 12-08-2011, 08:54 AM   #163
GoBigOrangeUT
Senior Member
 
GoBigOrangeUT's Avatar

Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Location: Volnation
Posts: 7,895
Likes: 7,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by joevol320 View Post
for the most part. but please enlighten though me on how stars help your evolution theory
Radiation causes genetic mutations. Any more questions?
GoBigOrangeUT is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 12-08-2011, 09:05 AM   #164
KiffinKiller
We are Delusional
 
KiffinKiller's Avatar

Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Location: Mankato, MN
Posts: 4,447
Likes: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBigOrangeUT View Post
Radiation causes genetic mutations. Any more questions?
radiation is just god's love
__________________
KiffinKiller is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 12-08-2011, 09:06 AM   #165
GoBigOrangeUT
Senior Member
 
GoBigOrangeUT's Avatar

Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science? Who is really anti-science?
Location: Volnation
Posts: 7,895
Likes: 7,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiffinKiller View Post
radiation is just god's love
Makes sense. Haha
GoBigOrangeUT is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.