That's pretty much my point right there. These "broad concepts" are more stereotypical and basically meaningless... which is exactly my point and is why the OP itself is flawed from the start. That's why I qualified what the OP could have meant in my very first post (religious right vs science). Doing so would bring more clarity by discussing specifics instead of overly-cliche generalizations... which is apparently where you people like to dwell.
Modern American political conservatism is basically composed of various independent groups and interests, which are united more by opposition to certain issues and beliefs than by a distinct shared ideology. If you think all the different "schools" under conservatism are somehow united based on a common desire for tradition and status quo then once again you simply don't understand. Nuance is your friend, use it.
There is nothing stupid about preserving what is good. The stupidity comes in not knowing what is good and what sucks.
Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about at all. As in none. Thank you so much for proving the point of the thread.
This post can only possibly be described as insane. You seem to be very, very confused.
Okay, ignoring most of the insanity, I'd like to address just one point. Thermodynamics is often misinterpreted by folks like yourself. Energy systems tend to increase their entropy rather than decrease it, yes, but this is often inapplicable to locally ordered systems. Applying the second law of thermodynamics to concepts like evolution is inane at best.
What you've suggested is that I can not organize the papers on my desk because that would decrease the entropy of local desk space. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work that way. You can decrease the entropy of local systems at the expense of a global system.
Also, the first law is wrong. Energy can be created from mass. Einstein theorized this, and experimental physics has proven it. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has also demonstrated that energy can be extracted from the vacuum of space if it is given back within a short enough time span (more energy = less time to return that energy). Since we have experimental evidence for these principles, I would like to remind you that the laws of thermodynamics have application only to thermodynamics.
People need to stop trying to apply physics to things like interpersonal relationships. I especially hate when people try to use quantum on a macro scale. Gah, it doesn't work that way, people!
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,791
- 6,350
- 126
You are confused, because you don't understand the definitions of Conservative and Liberal. He is not using stereotypes. He is using the proper definition of Conservative. Very few people truly are Conservative, but are a mixture of Conservative and Liberal. As you seem confused, you are likely railing against yourself whenever you are railing against Liberals.
Your post is... um, very foolish, much like Dealmonkey's. The "proper" definition?
Listening to Libs tell me what's a conservative is amusing. Gotta love ATPN... computer nerds lecturing me about political ideology. Once you people understand there is no one definition of Conservative (or Liberal) give me a holler.
The lack of comprehension and intelligent debate here astounds me. I guess I shouldn't be surprised; you guys elected Bush twice. :light:
Itelligence is not a saving quality. Lots of people are intelligent. Greenspan was thought to be quite intelligent. Just keep in mind that intelligence does not make you good leader or steward of money. If you study the IT industry you will find lots of intelligent people who had the foresight to create good software or build revolutionary hardware, but could not run a successful business. What is wrong is that people often get elected that do not have a clue about economics. If you have never had to balance a checkbook or run a company how can you run a country?
In the real world people have to pay their bills from the money they earn.
In the real world people have to pay their bills from the money they earn.
Why the reaction on the right toward intellectualism?
Probably the Bush disaster is causing some Republicans to think and the phenomenon is proving to be really scary.
Probably the Bush disaster is causing some Republicans to think and the phenomenon is proving to be really scary.
I'm educated to an elite level so probably not. I've met a few people on here that I can discuss things with on an intellectual level. Unfortunately you're not one of them.
Perhaps you should re-write the laws of Science with your PhD (if you have one).
Can mass be created? Your argument is paradoxical. The laws of thermodynamics stand, thank you very much, and are more respected scientifically than Evolution is.
According to the Bible, the one sin that is not forgiven by God is denying God. I'll pray for you. Stay in your evolutionist cult if you wish. I'm telling you as an educated person that it's been superceded and invalidated by more modern and ethically sound science. That theory is soooo 1800's.
The flu virus mutates, but viruses are neither living nor dead from a scientific standpoint. Please show me an instance where science has directly viewed evolution.
I don't need to re-write them, they already reflect what I have told you. You're just wrong. There is nothing paradoxical about my 'argument' if you'd prefer to use that as a synonym for the truth. Energy can be created from mass. We have seen it. It happens. All you have demonstrated is a fundamental misunderstanding. You took the laws of thermodynamics outside of thermodynamics and expected some sort of 'truth' to pop out. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. Thermodynamics + evolution live happily side by side. We see phenomena, we attempt to explain phenomena, we search for contradictions in our understanding. The quantum foam, by which I mean the particles that pop in and out of existence from the vacuum of space and can be experimentally proven to have real effects on scientific experiments, is proof enough that you can get something from nothing - so long as the something turns into nothing again. Furthermore, quantum foam is responsible for Hawking radiation - virtual particles are created from the vacuum of space, one particle falls into the abyss, the other leaves, and the black hole loses energy in order to turn these virtual particles into real particles.
As to your last sentence, a simple survey of Earth's history should be proof enough. Simple plants and animals existed before more complex ones. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The oldest fossil remains are very simple creatures, and as the strata get more recent the complexity increases. In summary - life began simple and has become more complex as time has gone on. In other words, more complex species appeared as less complex species disappeared. Human remains are very recent, indicating that the Earth and its inhabitants have existed long before us.
Also, the question of viruses being alive is still an open-ended question. However, if you're looking for definitely living species that mutate, take a look at the dog. Humans, through selective breeding, have genetically engineered all types of dogs. God didn't create the chihuahua or the poodle, humans did. More natural examples would be the birds that Darwin wrote about in the Galapagos Islands.
Your right-wing religious zealotry is clearly getting us nowhere, however, so I will simply suggest that you continue your pursuit of knowledge by purchasing some real textbooks and actually reading them. Science is about discovering the world, and religion doesn't have to get in the way of that. Some of the greatest scientists in history were very religious, but that didn't stop them from seeking knowledge beyond what others told them was 'truth'.
Edit: And as an addition, I'm Catholic. I believe in God. I don't let my belief turn me into an idiot who sits down and accepts non-truths like Intelligent Design. People like you who ignore actual truth in favor of blind ignorance give all religious folk a bad name. It is possible to embrace science AND faith.
I agree with most of that. The Bible actually co-insides perfectly with a "simple survey of the earth". The fact that the earth is 6,000 years old requires either faith in God, a belief in Einstein's relativity, or a combination thereof.
Carbon dating is flawed.
There is the potential that the earth is indeed billions of years old. As a Catholic, then, how do you reconcile with the fact that the Bible says that it's actually 6,000 years old +/-?
did sickbeast try to use the law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution?
Also matter can be created from energy and energy from matter, where do you think the energy from a nuclear bomb or the sun comes from?
Also matter can be created from energy and energy from matter, where do you think the energy from a nuclear bomb or the sun comes from?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter