What's with liberals?

[StillBallin75]

lol, I meant no offense. What I meant is that you seem of sound mind, what is your perspective, not that you have to be unsound to be a liberal. I am 23, the friend to which I'm referring, is 48. Others are in their twenties.

oh...i'm 21 lol.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I was talking to a friend of mine (Liberal), who also happens to be a evolutionist! We arguing the debate, creation VS evelution. We had no reference material in front of us, so I offered a challenge. Each of us would write a paper referencing scientific material that would support each opinion. I gave him my paper, he read it, and claimed this isn't science, it is philosophy. The paper was referencing direct scientific studies at several universities, claiming that it was impossible for RNA to creat protein, which in evelution would creat a basic life form.

I could have that backwards I don't have my information if front of me!

At any rate, every time you argue with a Liberal, and have a lead on them they just claim you are uneducated and ignorant! I guess if it's not their science, to them it's not science. If you didn't learn from their liberal proffessors its not education!

Were these real universities or places like liberty university?

:devil:

 

[StillBallin75]

Were these real universities or places like liberty university?

:devil:

do liberals even attend places like liberty university?

 

[Slartibartfast]

do liberals even attend places like liberty university?

I have no idea, but I figured it would fun to double down on the original complaint and see what happened. Now I ruined the joke.

 

[mxjsims]

Were these real universities or places like liberty university?

:devil:

When I provide the material we can debate the fallacies then. I agree, when it comes to providing information in creationist favor I failed. Still has nothing to do with the debate on the table.

Obamas moon landing joke, on Donald Trumps behalf, was just another way of calling Ole Trump ignorant. So there is an example coming straight from the Liberal leader!

 

[Slartibartfast]

When I provide the material we can debate the fallacies then. I agree, when it comes to providing information in creationist favor I failed. Still has nothing to do with the debate on the table.

Obamas moon landing joke, on Donald Trumps behalf, was just another way of calling Ole Trump ignorant. So there is an example coming straight from the Liberal leader!

I know, I was making a joke. Your original complaint, as far as I can tell, is that the validity of information was selected, so I figured I would go a little further with it.

 

[StillBallin75]

When I provide the material we can debate the fallacies then. I agree, when it comes to providing information in creationist favor I failed. Still has nothing to do with the debate on the table.

Obamas moon landing joke, on Donald Trumps behalf, was just another way of calling Ole Trump ignorant. So there is an example coming straight from the Liberal leader!

To be honest the jokes the President made at Trump's expense were pretty funny, and Trump totally had it coming.

 

[roughdraft274]

When I provide the material we can debate the fallacies then. I agree, when it comes to providing information in creationist favor I failed. Still has nothing to do with the debate on the table.

Obamas moon landing joke, on Donald Trumps behalf, was just another way of calling Ole Trump ignorant. So there is an example coming straight from the Liberal leader!

That was at the white house correspondents dinner. Have you ever seen one of those before?

 

[mxjsims]

To be honest the jokes the President made at Trump's expense were pretty funny, and Trump totally had it coming.

To be honest, I laughed. Still doesn't change the meaning behind his statement which supports my debate.

 

[mxjsims]

That was at the white house correspondents dinner. Have you ever seen one of those before?

What does that have to do with the statement, meaning behind it, or anything on this thread?

 

[roughdraft274]

What does that have to do with the statement, meaning behind it, or anything on this thread?

Because it's a dinner in which the president picks on alot of people including himself. It's like a roast. You're complaining that the president made a joke at a joke making event.

 

[spud_meister]

I haven't taken a biology class in awhile. Could someone refresh my memory as to how RNA plays into the evolution debate?

The argument is that the precursor to cellular life was RNA, which is a type of large molecule found in all life, and that because it has the ability to both store information and catalyse chemical reactions (in modern life, those functions are carried out by DNA and proteins, respectively) it was able to live, as it were.

RNA world hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mxjsims]

Because it's a dinner in which the president picks on alot of people including himself. It's like a roast. You're complaining that the president made a joke at a joke making event.

Again, does that change the meaning behind the joke? People don't just make comments in politics, just to be funny. They use it as a catalyst, for some type of gain. In this event he was using it ti tell the public, Donald Trump is ignorant.

 

[StillBallin75]

The argument is that the precursor to cellular life was RNA, which is a type of large molecule found in all life, and that because it has the ability to both store information and catalyse chemical reactions (in modern life, those functions are carried out by DNA and proteins, respectively) it was able to live, as it were.

RNA world hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alright, I'm going like 5 years back to my high school days to refresh my memory on the subject:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).

It seems that there are alternatives to the RNA world hypothesis. If mxjsims tried to disprove RNA world hypothesis in his argument:

1) There are several alternatives to that hypothesis that can explain how life arose from inorganic matter, and
2) It seems that he would be debating biogenesis/abiogenesis, not evolution.

 

[StillBallin75]

Again, does that change the meaning behind the joke? People don't just make comments in politics, just to be funny. They use it as a catalyst, for some type of gain. In this event he was using it ti tell the public, Donald Trump is ignorant.

I saw it more as "Donald Trump has been acting like an asshole by engaging in conspiracy bunk against me for media attention. Therefore I will use another conspiracy theory to make fun of him." I didn't see a veiled attempt at calling someone ignorant. And like I said, Trump totally had it coming.

 

[roughdraft274]

Again, does that change the meaning behind the joke? People don't just make comments in politics, just to be funny. They use it as a catalyst, for some type of gain. In this event he was using it ti tell the public, Donald Trump is ignorant.

He was saying it to poke fun at a person. At an event that was made for poking fun at people. Good lord you can't be serious.

 

[spud_meister]

Alright, I'm going like 5 years back to my high school days to refresh my memory on the subject:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It seems that there are alternatives to the RNA world hypothesis. If mxjsims tried to disprove RNA world hypothesis in his argument:

1) There are several alternatives to that hypothesis that can explain how life arose from inorganic matter, and
2) It seems that he would be debating biogenesis/abiogenesis, not evolution.

Yeah, exactly, but I think the point of his thread is to bash liberals, not evolution, which he's still failing at anyway. :lol:

edit:
And his liberal friend was right, it is more philosophic than scientific to assume that because one hypothesis may be incorrect, then another, which he has admitted having no evidence for, is correct.

 

[Slartibartfast]

(putting my serious hat on now) OK looking through this thread, I see a few problems.

1. A complaint is being made about someone not agreeing with the validity of information. I see a few problems with this. First of all, we have know objective way of knowing whether the information is valid or not, only that the OP is making a complaint. Two, we don't know the circumstances, under which the information is being a presented, it could be that one or both participants in this conversation are idiots or it could be that both have a PhD in biology, or something in between.

2. We don't know the credentials of the people who were cited or their standing in the scientific community. There are people with a PhD in some subject that are still routinely laughed at by the community and there are people who are self taught who would run circles around almost anyone.

3. The assumption seems to be that because one person acted this way, it means all people with a certain similarity must act the same way. We can cite numerous examples from this very forum where people reject information because it conflicts with their point of view. We can cite people from all sorts of ideologies that act this way. Alternatively, there could be good reason to laugh at the paper, we just don't know.

4. The poster is taking pot shots are people here who happen to be liberal, which makes me question how sincere their concern is or if they are just looking for an excuse to justify their point of view.

Probably the best way to begin resolving these issues is to look at the mentioned paper and see what it contains. We have some folks here who are pretty good with biology and I believe have an open mind to what the data will tell them, even if they personally disagree with the findings.

 

[StillBallin75]

Yeah, exactly, but I think the point of his thread is to bash liberals, not evolution, which he's still failing at anyway. :lol:

edit:
And his liberal friend was right, it is more philosophic than scientific to assume that because one hypothesis may be incorrect, then another, which he has admitted having no evidence for, is correct.

It's not a philosophic argument, it's just fallacious IMHO.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It's not a philosophic argument, it's just fallacious IMHO.

If the argument is "well scientists don't agree that X happened, so Y probably did" would be a bad argument and easily picked apart. But we should look at the paper first.

 

[spud_meister]

It's not a philosophic argument, it's just fallacious IMHO.

Well, he commited a deductive fallacy, which according to Wiki:

Deductive fallacy
In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.

Thus a philosphical term, thus philosophy. :mrgreen:

 

[StillBallin75]

Well, he commited a deductive fallacy, which according to Wiki:


Thus a philosphical term, thus philosophy. :mrgreen:

So I guess every time someone on this forum engages in a deductive fallacy we can just characterize their argument as philosophic? I would just say, "that's wrong" lol.

 

[lpast]

Ageless argument...and still to this day science nor religion can prove to us how the very very first piece of life started...it had nothing to evolve from.

 

[mxjsims]

Yeah, exactly, but I think the point of his thread is to bash liberals, not evolution, which he's still failing at anyway. :lol:

edit:
And his liberal friend was right, it is more philosophic than scientific to assume that because one hypothesis may be incorrect, then another, which he has admitted having no evidence for, is correct.

As far as that goes, the point I was trying make is that evolution is no more evident, than creation. The initial argument was that I COULD find scientific evidence proving creation. Being as I could not find the scientific support, my conclusion then was, evolution can be no more evident scientifically then creation thus should not be taught in school. The debate runs deeper than what I've revealed on this thread.

 

[StillBallin75]

As far as that goes, the point I was trying make is that evolution is no more evident, than creation. The initial argument was that I COULD find scientific evidence proving creation. Being as I could not find the scientific support, my conclusion then was, evolution can be no more evident scientifically then creation thus should not be taught in school. The debate runs deeper than what I've revealed on this thread.

I mentioned this before, you are debating biogenesis/abiogenesis as opposed to evolution. There exists ample scientific evidence for evolution as a process.

Edit: even if you are correct, there is a scientific basis for teaching such hypotheses as "RNA world hypothesis" and "iron-sulfer world theory." In contrast, creationism and intelligent design are more suitable for a philosophy class as opposed to a science class, because there is no scientific method to assess the validity of creation.