Abortion

Originally posted by Bardock42
What are those "far left-field" possibilities, you are talking about?

Proposing that a person may have confessed to protect someone they love. Proposing that someone stole a wallet because they thought it was theirs that they had lost. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Using "These things might exist." doesn't work, because then when asked for proof, you cannot provide any.

-AC

Ah, but schools do this kind of thing constantly. Lets take evolution for example (And before you say anything, allow me to say that I do believe in evolution... to an extent.) Evolution is a theory, full of holes that can't truly be explained, but is taught as undisputed fact in our schools. Yet we really have no proof that all life began as a single-cell organism, yet we accept it fact.

The Big Bang theory, taught as fact. Yet we have no proof.

But we accept all of this... why? when it comes down to the job of actually proving these things... in the end they fail.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Proposing that a person may have confessed to protect someone they love. Proposing that someone stole a wallet because they thought it was theirs that they had lost. etc. etc.

Funny you'd mention such stuff. http://www.cracked.com/article_16841_7-most-retarded-criminal-excuses-all-time.html

Really though, how are those "far left-field", and also how are they as unprovable as, for example, a soul?

Either way, the law makes room for protecting anyone (not only loved ones from harm)...that's not a far left idea, it's just common sense.

As for the wallet example, that does happen at times, if you can prove that it did (not sure how you'd prove that though), you shouldn't be put in jail for murder.

I think your "far right" view, makes "perfeclty middle ground" ideas appear "very far left" to you.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Ah, but schools do this kind of thing constantly. Lets take evolution for example (And before you say anything, allow me to say that I do believe in evolution... to an extent.) Evolution is a theory, full of holes that can't truly be explained, but is taught as undisputed fact in our schools. Yet we really have no proof that all life began as a single-cell organism, yet we accept it fact.

The Big Bang theory, taught as fact. Yet we have no proof.

But we accept all of this... why? when it comes down to the job of actually proving these things... in the end they fail.

That is incorrect. If someone teaches you Evolution and the Big Bang Theory as absolute fact, they didn't do their job, as set out by the government. Every real study on the subject would explain how scientific theories work, and also mention that those two, are the most prevalent at this time. Then they would go on explaining what evidence there is for, and possibly what criticism there is. Your view, again, is distorted by right wing propaganda. The "theory of evolution" is an actual scientific theory, while many of the Creationist protesters would like us to believe that it is actually the "wild guess of evolution". It is not. And it is taught accordingly to it's actual standing within science (as is Intelligent Design (i.e. not ****ing mentioned cause it is ludicrous).

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Ah, but schools do this kind of thing constantly. Lets take evolution for example (And before you say anything, allow me to say that I do believe in evolution... to an extent.) Evolution is a theory, full of holes that can't truly be explained, but is taught as undisputed fact in our schools. Yet we really have no proof that all life began as a single-cell organism, yet we accept it fact.

The Big Bang theory, taught as fact. Yet we have no proof.

But we accept all of this... why? when it comes down to the job of actually proving these things... in the end they fail.

this entire section should read "I AM unaware of the proof of...." either the big bang or common descent of all organisms.

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.cracked.com/article_16841_7-most-retarded-criminal-excuses-all-time.html

"no girlfriend will ever like that smell"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

😆 😆

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Ah, but schools do this kind of thing constantly. Lets take evolution for example (And before you say anything, allow me to say that I do believe in evolution... to an extent.) Evolution is a theory, full of holes that can't truly be explained, but is taught as undisputed fact in our schools. Yet we really have no proof that all life began as a single-cell organism, yet we accept it fact.

The Big Bang theory, taught as fact. Yet we have no proof.

But we accept all of this... why? when it comes down to the job of actually proving these things... in the end they fail.

As Bardock said, anyone that does that is wrong, but it is supported by a shitload of evidence that they SHOULD be showing you, and are.

Your theory that there are souls is based on faith, nothing more. Evolution isn't based on faith. You can say "I believe evolution because..." and then you have eons of theory to back you up.

You have nothing beyond "I believe there's more.". No actual proof.

As I said, you cannot give "I think." weight against what IS. Hence why your souls argument fails. Neither side is conclusive, but there's way more to suggest no souls than the existence of them.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
As for the wallet example, that does happen at times, if you can prove that it did (not sure how you'd prove that though), you shouldn't be put in jail for murder.

If someone kills someone just to get their wallet back... yea, they should be put in jail for murder.

That is incorrect. If someone teaches you Evolution and the Big Bang Theory as absolute fact, they didn't do their job, as set out by the government. Every real study on the subject would explain how scientific theories work, and also mention that those two, are the most prevalent at this time. Then they would go on explaining what evidence there is for, and possibly what criticism there is. Your view, again, is distorted by right wing propaganda. The "theory of evolution" is an actual scientific theory, while many of the Creationist protesters would like us to believe that it is actually the "wild guess of evolution". It is not. And it is taught accordingly to it's actual standing within science (as is Intelligent Design (i.e. not ****ing mentioned cause it is ludicrous). [/B]

They may not stand up and say "This is absolute fact" but never in all my years of sitting through evolution lectures have they ever said "Here's the evidence for and the evidence against."

And like I said before: I do, to an extent, believe in evolution. Infact I believe that evolutionists hold half of the answer, and creationists hold the other half, if they ever got together and put what all the evidence on the table we would get a beter view of how all this happened.

And I would like you to explain, sir, how ID is ludicrus.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As Bardock said, anyone that does that is wrong, but it is supported by a shitload of evidence that they SHOULD be showing you, and are.

Your theory that there are souls is based on faith, nothing more. Evolution isn't based on faith. You can say "I believe evolution because..." and then you have eons of theory to back you up.

You have nothing beyond "I believe there's more.". No actual proof.

As I said, you cannot give "I think." weight against what IS. Hence why your souls argument fails. Neither side is conclusive, but there's way more to suggest no souls than the existence of them.

-AC

Ok, Evolution may not have been the 100% best example... Lets try Global Warming... has more holes than evolution.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
how ID is ludicrus.

the appendix

Originally posted by inimalist
the appendix

The Appendix?

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
The Appendix?

serves little purpose (apparently some immuno purpose) in humans aside from becomming inflamed and killing us...

left over part of primate digestive tract that we no longer use because our diet has changed

what is the intelligent reason behind the appendix?

the way our spine and its muscles attach at the lower back is highly similar to other mammals. Because of this, it appears it is modified from 4 legged, hunched over animals.

Back pain, ubiquitous to all humans, is caused from this.

How is that an intelligent design?

EDIT: sorry for the OT, I'll leave these as "rhetorical"

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
If someone kills someone just to get their wallet back... yea, they should be put in jail for murder.

Dude...you very much changed your example. No where was there a trace of murder in your initial point. Yes, if someone kills someone for something as trivial as taking their wallet, even if it was maliciously stolen, that is an offense which is punished. Again, it's not what you said initially though.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
They may not stand up and say "This is absolute fact" but never in all my years of sitting through evolution lectures have they ever said "Here's the evidence for and the evidence against."

Because there is no evidence against. There's nothing that "proves" that evolution is wrong. There are things that are not fully explained, or totally proven, but if you got actualy evidence against it, woah, go forth and publish it, man, you gonna be famous.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
And like I said before: I do, to an extent, believe in evolution. Infact I believe that evolutionists hold half of the answer, and creationists hold the other half, if they ever got together and put what all the evidence on the table we would get a beter view of how all this happened.

Creationists have no prove, they just have an idea. They have the same validity as the people who think Aliens or a Spaghetti Monster started everything. That's the thing, they consider themselves with philosophical and basically unprovable phenomenon. That may be taught in philosophy or religious study or ethics, but it has nothing to do in a Science Class...there's no scientific evidence supporting intelligent design.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
And I would like you to explain, sir, how ID is ludicrus.

It is an random addition to the ideas of evolution based on a religious believes. There's no evidence that support the ID ideas contrary to simple evolution. ID is not a scientific theory.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Ok, Evolution may not have been the 100% best example... Lets try Global Warming...

What about global warming? I do actually agree that the political climate and sensationalism have a heavy part in the works on Human Caused Global Warming and Climate Change, which is a shame.

So I am with you on that. Global Warming does factually happen though, the evidence is there.

[edit] Oh, and I just realized we are badly off-topic. It would be good if you could tie in your point to the Abortion debate.

Originally posted by inimalist
serves little purpose (apparently some immuno purpose) in humans aside from becomming inflamed and killing us...

left over part of primate digestive tract that we no longer use because our diet has changed

what is the intelligent reason behind the appendix?

the way our spine and its muscles attach at the lower back is highly similar to other mammals. Because of this, it appears it is modified from 4 legged, hunched over animals.

Back pain, ubiquitous to all humans, is caused from this.

How is that an intelligent design?

EDIT: sorry for the OT, I'll leave these as "rhetorical"

And yet I shall answer. Both bring reasons as to why I believe Evolution and creation are both valid.

Appendix: It is true, when we were a young species, we had a more primitive diet. The appendix was at one time used, eventually humans will be born without it.

Lower back: Babies crawl on all fours. Humans, when young need backs to be that way (because the muscles haven't developed enough yet to hold them erect) so that, while they are still developing they can move, and work those muscles to a point that they can hold them in a fully erect state.

I hope you didn't miss my long reply, I'd be unhappy if it goes to waste.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Ok, Evolution may not have been the 100% best example... Lets try Global Warming... has more holes than evolution.

Yes, and there's still way more evidence for that than there is for the existence of souls, which currently stands at none.

There's no objective evidence. I'm agnostic, I'm not even saying you're wrong to believe it, but in the real world, we have to give what we know is more likely based on FACT, than what we don't know.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]Dude...you very much changed your example. No where was there a trace of murder in your initial point. Yes, if someone kills someone for something as trivial as taking their wallet, even if it was maliciously stolen, that is an offense which is punished. Again, it's not what you said initially though.

Because there is no evidence against. There's nothing that "proves" that evolution is wrong. There are things that are not fully explained, or totally proven, but if you got actualy evidence against it, woah, go forth and publish it, man, you gonna be famous.

Like I said, to an extent, I believe in evolution. I am not saying that evolution doesn't exist, but that rarely is the negative side of it (The holes) mentioned.

Creationists have no prove, they just have an idea. They have the same validity as the people who think Aliens or a Spaghetti Monster started everything. That's the thing, they consider themselves with philosophical and basically unprovable phenomenon. That may be taught in philosophy or religious study or ethics, but it has nothing to do in a Science Class...there's no scientific evidence supporting intelligent design.

Science can't prove it, science can't disprove it. Doesn't mean that we should completely throw out the possibility.

It is an random addition to the ideas of evolution based on a religious believes. There's no evidence that support the ID ideas contrary to simple evolution. ID is not a scientific theory.

Once again, like I have said several times before, I am not trying to disprove evolution, or prove ID, but let you see that there are more possibilities than your limited mind can comprenend.

What about global warming? I do actually agree that the political climate and sensationalism have a heavy part in the works on Human Caused Global Warming and Climate Change, which is a shame.

So I am with you on that. Global Warming does factually happen though, the evidence is there.

Global Warming factually happens... naturally. However, Propagandists such as Al Gore would have you believing it was all our fault...

You know that CO2 isn't a huge greenhouse gas? H2O is the greatest greenhous gas, and it is evaporated by the gallons over the world's oceans, condences and falls back.

[edit] Oh, and I just realized we are badly off-topic. It would be good if you could tie in your point to the Abortion debate.

The existance of a soul should be taken into consiteration when consitering abortion. I would give reccomend a book to read entitled "The New Evidences that Demand a Verdict" By. Josh Mcdowell. He started out writing the first part of this book in an effort to disprove Christanity... he failed... he failed so miserably, infact that he has become a well known christian figure, and his book that was origionally supposed to destroy the faith has only strengtheded it.

I would put down some of the things here, but I really need to get to work on the essay I have to have done for my sociology class tomorrow. and begin studying for finals. so I'll see you all later.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
The existance of a soul should be taken into consiteration when consitering abortion. I would give reccomend a book to read entitled "The New Evidences that Demand a Verdict" By. Josh Mcdowell. He started out writing the first part of this book in an effort to disprove Christanity... he failed... he failed so miserably, infact that he has become a well known christian figure, and his book that was origionally supposed to destroy the faith has only strengtheded it.

I would put down some of the things here, but I really need to get to work on the essay I have to have done for my sociology class tomorrow. and begin studying for finals. so I'll see you all later.

What is there to consider, though?

"There might be souls, we don't know.", exactly. We don't know, and there is absolutely no proof outside of faith. You cannot logically or rationally weight faith-based consideration against objective proof, regardless of if that proof is conclusive or not.

-AC

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
I was refering to your post, which said: "As for the wallet example, that does happen at times, if you can prove that it did (not sure how you'd prove that though), you shouldn't be put in jail for murder."

Like I said, to an extent, I believe in evolution. I am not saying that evolution doesn't exist, but that rarely is the negative side of it (The holes) mentioned.

Science can't prove it, science can't disprove it. Doesn't mean that we should completely throw out the possibility.

Once again, like I have said several times before, I am not trying to disprove evolution, or prove ID, but let you see that there are more possibilities than your limited mind can comprenend.

Global Warming factually happens... naturally. However, Propagandists such as Al Gore would have you believing it was all our fault...

You know that CO2 isn't a huge greenhouse gas? H2O is the greatest greenhous gas, and it is evaporated by the gallons over the world's oceans, condences and falls back.

The existance of a soul should be taken into consiteration when consitering abortion. I would give reccomend a book to read entitled "The New Evidences that Demand a Verdict" By. Josh Mcdowell. He started out writing the first part of this book in an effort to disprove Christanity... he failed... he failed so miserably, infact that he has become a well known christian figure, and his book that was origionally supposed to destroy the faith has only strengtheded it.

I would put down some of the things here, but I really need to get to work on the essay I have to have done for my sociology class tomorrow. and begin studying for finals. so I'll see you all later.

I guess it comes down to what possibilities you want to consider. Yes, there are many, many more, but a "soul" is just one of a very, very few. And even if you believe in a "soul" what it implies is also not clear and there are again many, many possibilities.

You can't take "souls" into account as there is no prove...there isn't even unanimous consent on what a soul is.

[edit] As for the wallet example, you are right, I made a mistake, I didn't mean to say murder, I meant to say theft.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Science can't prove it, science can't disprove it. Doesn't mean that we should completely throw out the possibility.

"I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."―Stephen J. Gould

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
I would give reccomend a book to read entitled "The New Evidences that Demand a Verdict" By. Josh Mcdowell. He started out writing the first part of this book in an effort to disprove Christanity... he failed... he failed so miserably, infact that he has become a well known christian figure, and his book that was origionally supposed to destroy the faith has only strengtheded it.

"The Charade of Josh McDowell" by Gordon Stein

Some of the claims made here are simply wrong. I don't like it when factual inaccuracies are perpetuated, so I did my best to support the theories.

I came up with this list (mostly) from memory, so even a cursory investigation should turn up an even greater amount of evidence.
Evidence for Evolution
1. Genetic similarity
All living organisms share huge swaths of DNA. This can be taken as evidence of a common ancestor. Humanity's nearest relative chimpanzees share between 93-98% of their genome with humans. Animals that are most closely related share the most DNA. A whale has more DNA in common with a Dog than a lizard.
2. Homologous structures
Following the lines of common descent, we also find that closely related organisms (ones that have a recent common ancestor- and also those with more ancient ancestors in common) have similar structures. Horses and Dogs both have four legs, humans and apes/monkeys have opposable thumbs, and mammals share forelimb structure (bats, whales and humans have similar bone structure in their front limbs). This is further evidence of gradual change over time from a common ancestor.
3. Fossil Evidence
Fossils give us physical, tangible, visible evidence of evolution that does not rely on technologically advanced machines to see. One can look at fossils and see the gradual change through time.
4. Observed Natural Selection
Another source of evidence for evolution "in action" is in the petri dish. Bacteria have been observed to evolve and mutate at a rapid pace. Mutations in bacterial infections like STAPH into MIRSA (sorry if the caps lock was unneeded) are real world (and deadly) applications of Evolutionary theory in action.
5. Embryology
The study of Embryology provides a point in favor of a common ancestor: animals closely related follow similar development paths. Mammals in the womb (fetuses) are initially similar and follow like growth patterns.
Evidence for the Big Bang
I'll admit I'm a bit sketchy on all of the details, but here's what I remember.
1. Cosmic Background radiation
Telescopes detect a constant "white noise" of cosmic rays (or maybe radio waves?) no matter where they are pointed at. The even distribution of this background radiation is evidence for the big bang.
2. Red/Blue shift
Celestial bodies are often moving away from us, causing a red-shift. If they are moving towards us it causes a blue shift. Astronomers and Cosmologists/astrophysicists cite this as evidence of an expansion of the universe that started with the Big Bang.
3. Hubble's Law
Related to Red/Blue shift, it states that [Wikipedia]Hubble's law is the statement in physical cosmology that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance.[/wikipedia] All this means is that the objects farthest away from us are moving the fastest. This suggests that they we are moving away from them even as they speed in the opposite direction. This would occur because of the Big Bang.
Evidence for Global Warming
1. Glaciers in retreat
If you've seen "An inconvenient Truth" you have seen the startling comparisons between Kilimanjaro in the 70's and today, The change in Glacier National Park, and the receding Ice shelves in Antarctica.
2. Ice Caps
Even in Alaska, the effects of Global warming is being felt. Surely you have seen/heard about the plight of the Polar Bears. The ice is less prevalent and less thick. It is a major problem.
3. More Severe Weather
Katrina. Widely thought to be the most destructive hurricane, it was outdone by hurricane Ike in 2008. (This year). Global Warming predicts more frequent and severe weather.
4. Softer Winters
Diminished freezing capacity has opened up new land for the Pine Bark Beetle: in Yellowstone and much of Colorado forests are being devastated because the larva are surviving the milder winters.

Edit: Geographic distribution of related species is considered eviedence for evolution as well. I missed that in the initial list.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Some of the claims made here are simply wrong. I don't like it when factual inaccuracies are perpetuated, so I did my best to support the theories.

I came up with this list (mostly) from memory, so even a cursory investigation should turn up an even greater amount of evidence.
Evidence for Evolution
1. Genetic similarity
All living organisms share huge swaths of DNA. This can be taken as evidence of a common ancestor. Humanity's nearest relative chimpanzees share between 93-98% of their genome with humans. Animals that are most closely related share the most DNA. A whale has more DNA in common with a Dog than a lizard.
2. Homologous structures
Following the lines of common descent, we also find that closely related organisms (ones that have a recent common ancestor- and also those with more ancient ancestors in common) have similar structures. Horses and Dogs both have four legs, humans and apes/monkeys have opposable thumbs, and mammals share forelimb structure (bats, whales and humans have similar bone structure in their front limbs). This is further evidence of gradual change over time from a common ancestor.
3. Fossil Evidence
Fossils give us physical, tangible, visible evidence of evolution that does not rely on technologically advanced machines to see. One can look at fossils and see the gradual change through time.
4. Observed Natural Selection
Another source of evidence for evolution "in action" is in the petri dish. Bacteria have been observed to evolve and mutate at a rapid pace. Mutations in bacterial infections like STAPH into MIRSA (sorry if the caps lock was unneeded) are real world (and deadly) applications of Evolutionary theory in action.
5. Embryology
The study of Embryology provides a point in favor of a common ancestor: animals closely related follow similar development paths. Mammals in the womb (fetuses) are initially similar and follow like growth patterns.

Said before: I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION to an extent. However, examples 1,2, and 5 can also point to a single creator.

Evidence for the Big Bang
I'll admit I'm a bit sketchy on all of the details, but here's what I remember.
1. Cosmic Background radiation
Telescopes detect a constant "white noise" of cosmic rays (or maybe radio waves?) no matter where they are pointed at. The even distribution of this background radiation is evidence for the big bang.
2. Red/Blue shift
Celestial bodies are often moving away from us, causing a red-shift. If they are moving towards us it causes a blue shift. Astronomers and Cosmologists/astrophysicists cite this as evidence of an expansion of the universe that started with the Big Bang.
3. Hubble's Law
Related to Red/Blue shift, it states that [Wikipedia]Hubble's law is the statement in physical cosmology that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance.[/wikipedia] All this means is that the objects farthest away from us are moving the fastest. This suggests that they we are moving away from them even as they speed in the opposite direction. This would occur because of the Big Bang.

Hardly compelling evidence, all of those could be created by... anything. Gravitational pull, black holes, etc.

Evidence for Global Warming
1. Glaciers in retreat
If you've seen "An inconvenient Truth" you have seen the startling comparisons between Kilimanjaro in the 70's and today, The change in Glacier National Park, and the receding Ice shelves in Antarctica.
2. Ice Caps
Even in Alaska, the effects of Global warming is being felt. Surely you have seen/heard about the plight of the Polar Bears. The ice is less prevalent and less thick. It is a major problem.
3. More Severe Weather
Katrina. Widely thought to be the most destructive hurricane, it was outdone by hurricane Ike in 2008. (This year). Global Warming predicts more frequent and severe weather.
4. Softer Winters
Diminished freezing capacity has opened up new land for the Pine Bark Beetle: in Yellowstone and much of Colorado forests are being devastated because the larva are surviving the milder winters.

Edit: Geographic distribution of related species is considered eviedence for evolution as well. I missed that in the initial list. [/B]

Please tell me you did not just cite that propagandist Al Gore.

In the 1970's everyone was afraid of Global cooling, today we have global darkening contesting Global warming (Though it doesn't get it's press time because it isn't PC). In truth, the Ice caps are getting thicker (Once not a PC thing to say, but none-the-less true), and the plight of the polar bears is simple propaganda so that the WWF, Greenpeace, and all those other eco morons can look like they are actually useful for something.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Said before: I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION to an extent. However, examples 1,2, and 5 can also point to a single creator.

Evolution doesn't contradict a single creator. And 1,2 and 5 do not point at any creator, it's not evidence for it.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Please tell me you did not just cite that propagandist Al Gore.

In the 1970's everyone was afraid of Global cooling, today we have global darkening contesting Global warming (Though it doesn't get it's press time because it isn't PC). In truth, the Ice caps are getting thicker (Once not a PC thing to say, but none-the-less true), and the plight of the polar bears is simple propaganda so that the WWF, Greenpeace, and all those other eco morons can look like they are actually useful for something.

Well, again, Global Warming is not very controversial. How much humans interfere is the question....and I guess what the consequences of warming will actually be.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Said before: I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION to an extent. However, examples 1,2, and 5 can also point to a single creator.

They point to a common ancestor not a single creator. There isn't any positive evidence anywhere of a creator.