• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

I apologize for my absence of late, but I am happy to continue this conversation.

RiverDad said:
You go too far. Liberal creationists deny that the hereditarian hypothesis isn't even worthy of consideration, that it can't possible function as a mechanism which explains what is happening. That's why they're creationists.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That's just silly.



Accepted again! It would appear that neither of us are attempting to do more than establish the validity of our positions. I agree that to discount either is folly. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is almost certainly SOME race-associated genetic factors that affect general cognitive ability. The degree to which they impact intelligence is very debatable.




Fair enough. the 2SD / 95% certainty line is a tall order, especially in measuring something as diffuse as cognitive ability. However, it is my contention that the assertion that certain racial groups are genetically superior to others requires a high bar. And let us not forget the limitations of IQ testing to begin with - we must accept that it measures only a fraction of the many abilities that compose "intelligence."


Well, I will agree with you once again - it is an invalid position to reject completely the POSSIBILITY of race-associated genetic factors that affect general cognitive ability. Intelligence is THE key adaptation that differentiates Homo sapiens from Pan trogdolytes.


Here, I must disagree. Although my review of the literature was far from thorough, even a cursory exploration was sufficient to discover a very high degree of uncertainty in the literature measuring the heritability of cognitive ability. Also, remember my only goal is to establish the validity of the "predominant environment" position as a defensible one, and the "predominant heritability" position as uncertain. As the non-expert (with some relevant training in molecular genetics) I am confident I have shown this.

Interestingly though, it seems we have arrived at many more points of agreement than disagreement. This is unsurprising considering that we have been at least somewhat reserved (perhaps with help from the opposing side) to claiming only what is shown in objective, peer-reviewed research. Damn, I love the process of science. Dogmatism fills me with an urge to vomit.
 
RiverDad said:
Just to make clear - there is a difference between calling for climate models to be revised and reaching conclusions based on this finding. Climate models are tools, conclusions are reached through the use of the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Let's leave the jumping to conclusions to the bloggers.
 

Really? "All evidence" is to the contrary? That statement is absurd and you would do well to speak to topics you have some knowledge of, as to not make yourself appear so foolish.
 
nijato said:
I apologize for my absence of late, but I am happy to continue this conversation.
Click to expand...

Well, we're still left with a huge problem - the entirety of social science is predicated upon a liberal creationist foundation. "You don't believe in DNA, do you?"

If one doesn't understand what one is studying, and doesn't thoroughly investigate all factors, then the conclusions one reaches are bound to be inaccurate.
 

Another straw man

*yawn*
 

It is frustrating to consider the positions of others when those positions are demonstrably untrue. If we cannot agree on objective reality, we cannot hope to agree on anything. It's enough to depress you sometimes...
 

I'm not a big fan of the social sciences. Maybe that's because I'm not ACTUALLY a liberal
 
Just for the record, "renowned science editor, Nigel Calder" is a well known climate change denier, i.e., he's mostly renowned for being a crank.
 
RealClimate should have shut down as soon as ClimateGate hit the news. Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann was one of their principal bloggers. Closing ranks to defend him was unconscionable.
 
RiverDad said:
RealClimate should have shut down as soon as ClimateGate hit the news. Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann was one of their principal bloggers. Closing ranks to defend him was unconscionable.
Click to expand...

Ouch. And thus RiverDad exposes the fact that he has little or no understanding of Climate Science.
 
RiverDad said:
RealClimate should have shut down as soon as ClimateGate hit the news. Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann was one of their principal bloggers. Closing ranks to defend him was unconscionable.
Click to expand...

There have been like seven investigations into Climategate, all of which turn up no wrongdoing. Regarding climategate, you've been had. There was no grand conspiracy to distort the truth. But hey, if you want to talk about it more, the conspiracy forum is that way

|
|
|
|
V
 
AdamT said:
Ouch. And thus RiverDad exposes the fact that he has little or no understanding of Climate Science.
Click to expand...

But, like Al Gore, you understand Climate Science perfectly and remain convinced that the world will overheat through cowfarts and we're all doomed, just as earlier predictions claimed starvation was inevitable, our rivers would burn, cities would crumble, entire continents would collapse, and so on,

Head for the hills, chant Goreisms to each other, cover yourself with white robes and be sure to protect yourself from the gap the ozone layer left behind.
 

Actually our rivers did burn, which was a significant factor in passing the clean water act. Shockingly, water quality has improved markedly since then. Not familiar with those consensus scientific findings that predicted crumbling cities and collapsing continents. Perhaps you have a link?
 

Here's a link to the consensus scientific findings that predicted crumbling cities and collapsing continents grant mentions.
 

Yes, I am quite familiar with that incident of the river catching fire, and in fact it caught fire several times. And while water quality has improved in that river, and thats something to be grateful for, water quality in other areas has been excellent for centuries.

Global warming is a money making hoax though it has its believers, just as other hoaxes throughout the centuries have had, and each time people are convinced that maybe this time it will finally be true. But, just like the fears of the past, they have proved to be nonsense. Halloween Hangover: Ehrlich, Holdren, Hansen Unretracted — MasterResource
 

No, it isn't a hoax. You've been brainwashed by partisan media types who know f*ckall about the problem.
 
AdamT said:
No, it isn't a hoax. You've been brainwashed by partisan media types who know f*ckall about the problem.
Click to expand...

You realize that the other side views you much the same way? Both sides will say it's fueled by propaganda.
 
digsbe said:
You realize that the other side views you much the same way? Both sides will say it's fueled by propaganda.
Click to expand...

Correct. On one side, we have some pundits with little or no scientific background. On the other side, we have every scientific organization on Earth.

Sure, there are two sides to every question.

In this corner, we have Godzilla, weighing in at twenty tons, with teeth three feet long.
In this corner, we have Mrs. Jones' lap poodle.
 
AdamT said:
No, it isn't a hoax. You've been brainwashed by partisan media types who know f*ckall about the problem.
Click to expand...

Right, but you and Al Gore do.

Believe what you want to believe, i really don't care. But I'd also suggest you follow the money in these hoaxes because there is plenty being made. And the pity of it is that a lot of it is tax dollars.
 

That's just it. Deniers what their poodle to be seen as equal in every way to Godzilla. Forget the science, just pretend they have equal claim. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
That's just it. Deniers what their poodle to be seen as equal in every way to Godzilla. Forget the science, just pretend they have equal claim. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

This demonstrates how easily dupes buy into these goofy theories, just as they've been doing for thousands of years.

Those who claim man made global warming is not a serious issue are "deniers", which demonstrates just how deeply the dupes have fed into this silliness..There is no longer any room for debate, even from accredited climatologists, because they want so fervently to believe.

But I wouldn't expect those who can't even balance a budget or control a border to miraculously control nature, so even if the Gorists are right we're doomed anyway.
 
Last edited:

I know. Things like the earth revolves around the sun is just goofy. And that whole gravity thing, Whoa, who'd buy that.

No, you can find anyone to say anything. But, when you make decisions you have to go with the best science, the consensus. You just don't leap to the minority view, or treat it as equal because it supports what you want to be true. You follow the science and change only when the science changes. This is about science and nothing else. Those who see it as political are largely being fooled. Today the science says man made GW is real. Until something new comes along, until the science suggest something else as a larger problem, the prudent person pays attention and acts accordingly.
 
Boo Radley said:
I know. Things like the earth revolves around the sun is just goofy. And that whole gravity thing, Whoa, who'd buy that.
Click to expand...

If you're looking for goofy theories Al Gore certainly has at least one for you.
No, you can find anyone to say anything. But, when you make decisions you have to go with the best science, the consensus.
Click to expand...

Science is not established through a vote. If that was the case you could have once made the arguemnt that the sun did revolve around the earth because the science of the day claimed this was the case.

But money is disappearing into these claims whole the science is, at best, uncertain and unclear.
You just don't leap to the minority view, or treat it as equal because it supports what you want to be true.
Click to expand...

Again, science is not decided by a minority or majority. It is decided by science, evidence, and so on. Not by a show of hands.


The science is not yet clear and hundreds and thousands of foolish and unsubstantiated claims are being made without any evidence to support them. Again, you can believe whatever nonsense you choose, but not when public funds get involved into this silliness. Science must be exact and the evidence beyond dispute
 
Redress said:
Because it is based on a straw man on your own wildly biased views.

And I don't own a prius, and know more about evolution than 99 % of the population.
Click to expand...
How do you know that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…