2016 Election Thread

[Hrbowski]

 

Fluoride is a lefty thing? I thought that was a righty thing........huh.

 

Basic science, like the world is more than 5000 years old, and the world is getting warmer. What causes that change, imo, debate away. But denying an observable, measurable thing?

I have yet to meet someone who thinks the world is 5000 years or younger, and I know several evangelical christians. As for the world getting warmer, satelite data hasn't been around for a long enough time to come anywhere making that an undeniable, observable, measurable thing, and the data that they really do have points towards only very slight changes in global temperature, certainly not what the liberal left is making it out to be.

[TheLeviathan]

 

"Different group of humans" is where our arguments diverge. I see your point but my later statements clarify that I question whether a fetus - particularly early in a pregnancy - qualifies as human in the first place.

 

And I don't have an answer to that question. It's easy to declare a living, breathing man or woman a human because it's an obvious statement. A three-month fetus... of that, I'm not so sure.

 

Look, I'm being hard on your viewpoint because I respect it and have gone through the same struggles.  I've just come to see that part in bold as the true crux to our national conversation.

 

I really don't like that.

[DaveW]

 

As for the world getting warmer, satelite data hasn't been around for a long enough time to come anywhere making that an undeniable, observable, measurable thing, and the data that they really do have points towards only very slight changes in global temperature, certainly not what the liberal left is making it out to be.

Yeah that is completely false and further more just proves Mikes earlier point. 99.9% of scientists would refute what you just said, the only ones who agree with it are the Rick Perry's, Donald Trumps and the Koch Brothers of the world.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I have yet to meet someone who thinks the world is 5000 years or younger, and I know several evangelical christians.

I know several. I share blood with a few of them.

[Mike Sixel]

 

There is overlap but this is my understanding of the situation:

 

On the far far right, flouride is considered some kind of bizarre governmental conspiracy. It's not a denial of science so much as a denial of common sense coupled with extreme paranoia.

 

On the far far left, flouride is considered dangerous because it's a "foreign element". It's largely the same argument used to remove GMOs from our food supply. Never mind that flouride is a naturally-occurring entity and has been rigorously tested by science. Hence, the left's position is more anti-science than the right.

 

Portland, one of the most left-leaning cities in the country, voted against the addition of flouride to their water supply because... Well, it's not even worth discussing the "why" because it's utter nonsense.

 

Damn, I'm moving to Portland......

[formerly33]

 

Yeah that is completely false and further more just proves Mikes earlier point. 99.9% of scientists would refute what you just said, the only ones who agree with it are the Rick Perry's, Donald Trumps and the Koch Brothers of the world.

They're scientists?! This is news to me.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I have yet to meet someone who thinks the world is 5000 years or younger, and I know several evangelical christians. As for the world getting warmer, satelite data hasn't been around for a long enough time to come anywhere making that an undeniable, observable, measurable thing, and the data that they really do have points towards only very slight changes in global temperature, certainly not what the liberal left is making it out to be.

 

Justice Thomas does, for one......

[DaveW]

 

They're scientists?! This is news to me.

The only *people.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Look, I'm being hard on your viewpoint because I respect it and have gone through the same struggles.  I've just come to see that part in bold as the true crux to our national conversation.

In this case, I don't know if we can honestly move past that part of the conversation because it forces us to delve into the world of philosophy and leave science behind.

 

When does life begin? Well, first we must define "life" and... well, science can't answer that question in a meaningful way, which means we all need to make a judgment call based on belief, not fact.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I have yet to meet someone who thinks the world is 5000 years or younger, and I know several evangelical christians. As for the world getting warmer, satelite data hasn't been around for a long enough time to come anywhere making that an undeniable, observable, measurable thing, and the data that they really do have points towards only very slight changes in global temperature, certainly not what the liberal left is making it out to be.

 

Look, it's been more than slight and I'm of the opinion that the entire issue is being argued poorly by the left.  The basic science is that we emit a lot of carbon and carbon in the atmosphere will trap heat.  It's just a fact, so even if the climate models and readings aren't 100% reliable, the truth is that we have to be more cognizant of our own emissions or we're going to create a huge problem at some point. 

 

We should be finding more common sense, practical solutions and let diplomacy help reduce them around the world.

[TheLeviathan]

 

In this case, I don't know if we can honestly move past that part of the conversation because it forces us to delve into the world of philosophy and leave science behind.

 

When does life begin? Well, first we must define "life" and... well, science can't answer that question in a meaningful way, which means we all need to make a judgment call based on belief, not fact.

 

Absolutely, I'm not sure science can answer that question for us.  "Personhood" is a value statement, it's something socially created to bestow rights and protections.  We've long abused that distinction for pragmatic and manipulative reasons.

 

In scientific terms, upon conception, a fetus is a living human.  Anything beyond that is a social construction based on what we value.

[formerly33]

 

In this case, I don't know if we can honestly move past that part of the conversation because it forces us to delve into the world of philosophy and leave science behind.

 

When does life begin? Well, first we must define "life" and... well, science can't answer that question in a meaningful way, which means we all need to make a judgment call based on belief, not fact.

1. All life forms contain deoxyribonucleic acid, which is called DNA.

 

2. All life forms have a method by which they extract energy from the surroundings and convert it into energy that sustains them.

 

3. All life forms can sense changes in their surroundings and respond to those changes.

 

4. All life forms reproduce.

 

I'm sorry, but even liberal scientist will have to admit that fetuses fit into that category. Dave's "real" scientists (the 99.9%) know that. They just deny it because they want to tweak science to fit their ideas ... like politicians.

 

So could I say that the 99.9% of scientists mentioned above are just the liberal politicians of the world?

[Hrbowski]

 

Look, it's been more than slight and I'm of the opinion that the entire issue is being argued poorly by the left.  The basic science is that we emit a lot of carbon and carbon in the atmosphere will trap heat.  It's just a fact, so even if the climate models and readings aren't 100% reliable, the truth is that we have to be more cognizant of our own emissions or we're going to create a huge problem at some point. 

 

We should be finding more common sense, practical solutions and let diplomacy help reduce them around the world.

I agree that we should protect the environment. I believe it was given to us by God, and that we should be good stewards of the Earth, but when I bring that part in the left just about always tries to say you are being ridiculous, so I guess I don't get them.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree that we should protect the environment. I believe it was given to us by God, and that we should be good stewards of the Earth, but when I bring that part in the left just about always tries to say you are being ridiculous, so I guess I don't get them.

 

I think there are a ton of reasons the right and left can get behind environmental protection.  But I think both sides of the debate are being driven by politicians with their pockets lined with money.  So they like to keep it divisive for their own purposes.

 

At least, that's the best explanation I have for it.

[DaveW]

I don't really care to argue the semantics of what a fetus is or isn't. It's a women's right issue, not a barely developed fetus issue.

 

I think the shaming and stigma around abortions and people who choose to get them is appalling and many of the folks who shame these people are the same who refuse to give a dollar to a homeless mother on the street. The "pro life" crowd seems to care so much about the kid until it is actually born, then at that point they really seem to care less.

[Hrbowski]

 

Yeah that is completely false and further more just proves Mikes earlier point. 99.9% of scientists would refute what you just said, the only ones who agree with it are the Rick Perry's, Donald Trumps and the Koch Brothers of the world.

Well, in case you are wondering, if they use what the Bible teaches the world would be more around 10,000 years old.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't really care to argue the semantics of what a fetus is or isn't. It's a women's right issue, not a barely developed fetus issue.

I think the shaming and stigma around abortions and people who choose to get them is appalling and many of the folks who shame these people are the same who refuse to give a dollar to a homeless mother on the street. The "pro life" crowd seems to care so much about the kid until it is actually born, then at that point they really seem to care less.

 

It is about women's rights.  It's also about human life.  It can be about both.

 

The "semantics" should be important.  We've made them unimportant so we can feel good morally about our conclusion.

[DaveW]

I agree that we should protect the environment. I believe it was given to us by God, and that we should be good stewards of the Earth, but when I bring that part in the left just about always tries to say you are being ridiculous, so I guess I don't get them.

that is all fine and I commend you for that, but you also basically just said that climate change has been minimal in a post 15 minutes ago and their hasn't been enough data etc etc

[DaveW]

Well, in case you are wondering, if they use what the Bible teaches the world would be more around 10,000 years old.

I was talking about the climate change which is why I only quoted that.

 

Anyone who thinks the earth is 5,000-10,000 years old isn't even worth spending a thought on.(luckily those numbers are fewer and fewer)

[Hrbowski]

 

that is all fine and I commend you for that, but you also basically just said that climate change has been minimal in a post 15 minutes ago and their hasn't been enough data etc etc

I certainly did, and that is what I believe, but back in the day when Theodore Roosevelt was president nobody talked about climate change like they do now, and he was one of the biggest advocates for environmental protection. Whether climate change is real or not should not have a factor about whether we protect the environment; we should. In my opinion the issue is to what extent.

[DaveW]

We've made them unimportant so we can feel good morally about our conclusion.

I don't know about that, I think most people are against late term abortions (unless in case of emergency)

[formerly33]

 

I was talking about the climate change which is why I only quoted that.

Anyone who thinks the earth is 5,000-10,000 years old isn't even worth spending a thought on.(luckily those numbers are fewer and fewer)

Those could argue that anyone who thinks the earth is 4.54 billion years isn't even worth spending a thought on (unfortunately the numbers are growing and growing).

 

But it wouldn't be true. Everyone, no matter their belief, is worth spending plenty of thought on. Not everyone agrees, but everyone has their arguments and I hope they back it with what they consider to be valid points. And everyone has the right to disagree. It's not a case of whether somebody is worth spending a thought on ... sorry.

[DaveW]

people that don't deserve a thought of mine on:

 

Anti Vacciantions folk

West Boro Baptists

People who think the earth is only 10,000 years old and dinosaurs never roamed the earth.

NAMBLA

Packers fans

People that think 54 year old Michael Jordan could beat 29 year old Lebron James.

 

Etc etc

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree that we should protect the environment. I believe it was given to us by God, and that we should be good stewards of the Earth, but when I bring that part in the left just about always tries to say you are being ridiculous, so I guess I don't get them.

 

I wish more people shared your belief. Thank you.

[formerly33]

I have a question. If the universe started out as nothing, how did the dust start? And that dust that slowly built up and built up and created an earth and life, etc. etc. How did that happen?

 

There are answers. I've read a lot about it, answers that have been provided by both creationists and uniformitarians. But the faith it takes to believe in the answers by the latter group! A lot of people question Christians' beliefs and laugh at their foolish faith. I just want to say ... it takes a lot more faith to believe the "scientist" point of view.

 

But if that's what makes you happy ... so be it. And sorry for digressing ... this has nothing to do with the 2016 elections.

[DaveW]

Those could argue that anyone who thinks the earth is 4.54 billion years isn't even worth spending a thought on (unfortunately the numbers are growing and growing).

 

But it wouldn't be true. Everyone, no matter their belief, is worth spending plenty of thought on. Not everyone agrees, but everyone has their arguments and I hope they back it with what they consider to be valid points. And everyone has the right to disagree. It's not a case of whether somebody is worth spending a thought on ... sorry.

But the earth is 4+ billion years old. This is fact. The earth is not flat. This is fact.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

1. All life forms contain deoxyribonucleic acid, which is called DNA.

 

2. All life forms have a method by which they extract energy from the surroundings and convert it into energy that sustains them.

 

3. All life forms can sense changes in their surroundings and respond to those changes.

 

4. All life forms reproduce.

 

I'm sorry, but even liberal scientist will have to admit that fetuses fit into that category. Dave's "real" scientists (the 99.9%) know that. They just deny it because they want to tweak science to fit their ideas ... like politicians.

 

So could I say that the 99.9% of scientists mentioned above are just the liberal politicians of the world?

It's a bit more complex than that because Levi and I are discussing "life" in more of a colloquial manner. As with most things science, we step into treacherous ground when we apply a scientific definition of a word to an argument that involves more than science.

 

Here's a pretty great article on the subject:

 

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

 

 

 

Q: What is your opinion of attempts to define of "life?"

 

In a recent paper in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Christopher Chyba and I argue that it is a mistake to try to define 'life'. Such efforts reflect fundamental misunderstandings about the nature and power of definitions.

 

Definitions tell us about the meanings of words in our language, as opposed to telling us about the nature of the world. In the case of life, scientists are interested in the nature of life; they are not interested in what the word "life" happens to mean in our language. What we really need to focus on is coming up with an adequately general theory of living systems, as opposed to a definition of "life."

 

On the matter of "scientific life" (and to descend further into this rabbit hole), CalTech used synthetic DNA to create crystals that meet the properties of life you listed above. Are they alive?

 

http://www.dna.caltech.edu/Papers/dna-crystal-evolution.pdf

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

A lot of people question Christians' beliefs and laugh at their foolish faith. I just want to say ... it takes a lot more faith to believe the "scientist" point of view.

The key difference between science and faith is that science changes when presented with better information.

 

Is our understanding of the universe's origins flawed? Almost certainly. We still haven't figured out gravity, for crying out loud.

 

Calling into question science's ability to understand natural phenomena because it hasn't figured out every natural phenomena is a flawed argument.

[DaveW]

Even "faith" changes their official viewpoints, the pope has come out in favor of climate change (he was a scientist btw), how old the earth is, gay rights, etc most Christians accept these things as well, the only ones who don't are in an extreme (but vocal) minority who just ignore all common sense.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Even "faith" changes their official viewpoints

Absolutely... But it usually requires faith to be smacked around with science for a few decades for it to happen.