Defending the Truth
Articles | Interviews | Politicians | Groups | Arcade | Experience | Donate
  Defending the Truth > Political Issues > Environment
Another species at risk due to oil

Environment Debate and defend the issues our world faces on topics such as global warming, environmental pollution, and the many proposals that might help solve these problems.

Reply
Page 4 of 12 < 123 4 56789101112 >
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-09-2006, 02:39 PM   #31 (permalink)
Banned
 
Jefferson's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Omaha Beach
Posts: 7,298
Points: 21,921, Level: 92
Points: 21,921, Level: 92 Points: 21,921, Level: 92 Points: 21,921, Level: 92
Level up: 58%, 429 Points needed
Level up: 58% Level up: 58% Level up: 58%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Jefferson is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyreay
1,300 researchers, Doctors and leaders in their fields, from 45 countries, think you are wrong. Geology, Biology, our whole understanding of science, is built on what you are now trying to call theory. Going back to such a basic argument as evolution is theory is not looking at any of the above info objectively. Why does the last sentence sound familiar? I notice a trend here to change the subject...... Sedimentary science is that advanced; on the other hand, if you think we did not evolve, just say so.
Wrong-o!

I am NOT going back to some argument about evolution.

What I AM saying is that much of what we call "science" - in regards to what we believe happened millions of years ago - is "speculation".
Sponsored Links
Old 03-09-2006, 02:52 PM   #32 (permalink)
Super Moderator
Moderator
 
hevusa's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Seattle (grew up around D.C.)
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,874
Country:
Points: 28,474, Level: 99
Points: 28,474, Level: 99 Points: 28,474, Level: 99 Points: 28,474, Level: 99
Level up: 8%, 1,526 Points needed
Level up: 8% Level up: 8% Level up: 8%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
hevusa is online now 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyreay
1,300 researchers, Doctors and leaders in their fields, from 45 countries, think you are wrong. Geology, Biology, our whole understanding of science, is built on what you are now trying to call theory. Going back to such a basic argument as evolution is theory is not looking at any of the above info objectively. Why does the last sentence sound familiar? I notice a trend here to change the subject...... Sedimentary science is that advanced; on the other hand, if you think we did not evolve, just say so.
Wrong-o!

I am NOT going back to some argument about evolution.

What I AM saying is that much of what we call "science" - in regards to what we believe happened millions of years ago - is "speculation".

Some of it certainly is. But we are talking about current research from the last 100 years.
--- help me Instant Runoff Voting, you're my only hope ---

There is little doubt that the world in general is more liberal than it was 50 years ago and beyond. Conservatives are simply roadblocks on the path to an ever more progressive and liberal world. What a sad existence.
Old 03-09-2006, 02:53 PM   #33 (permalink)
Super Moderator
Moderator
 
tyreay's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: RI
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,846
Country:
Points: 15,165, Level: 79
Points: 15,165, Level: 79 Points: 15,165, Level: 79 Points: 15,165, Level: 79
Level up: 63%, 185 Points needed
Level up: 63% Level up: 63% Level up: 63%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Send a message via Yahoo to tyreay
tyreay is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyreay
1,300 researchers, Doctors and leaders in their fields, from 45 countries, think you are wrong. Geology, Biology, our whole understanding of science, is built on what you are now trying to call theory. Going back to such a basic argument as evolution is theory is not looking at any of the above info objectively. Why does the last sentence sound familiar? I notice a trend here to change the subject...... Sedimentary science is that advanced; on the other hand, if you think we did not evolve, just say so.
Wrong-o!

I am NOT going back to some argument about evolution.

What I AM saying is that much of what we call "science" - in regards to what we believe happened millions of years ago - is "speculation".
And I respect your right to your belief this is speculation, as I have my right to my belief, I just think none of this makes any difference in the end as we still need to pitch in together to repair our earths ecosystems.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour

There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville
Old 03-09-2006, 05:12 PM   #34 (permalink)
Council Member
 
Dylan's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,808
Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Level up: 37%, 126 Points needed
Level up: 37% Level up: 37% Level up: 37%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Dylan is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by teethandclaws
I am dedicating my life to helping endangered animals and the planet, through educating others in my work and my current college studies, so think what you want about me, I simply don't care. I will continue to be a voice for those who cannot speak and need to be heard. If you think that's being an attention hound, whatever...
Here's a clinker I've been pondering...

Do you believe in the theory of evolution? If so, how can you both believe in the theory of evolution AND be an activist for endangered species?

I'm not smarting off here. But it seems to me that philosophical integrity would demand that those who believe in the theory of evolution ALSO accept that certain species will simply "evolve out"...
Evolution is a slow, gradual process. We are destroying things at a faster rate than anything multicelluar could keep up with.
Old 03-09-2006, 05:16 PM   #35 (permalink)
Council Member
 
Dylan's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,808
Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Level up: 37%, 126 Points needed
Level up: 37% Level up: 37% Level up: 37%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Dylan is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
...and once again, I'll remind you that a great deal of this is speculation. And while I'm not saying that the overall picture is wrong, I am saying that people often distort truth and/or speculate in a direction that fits their own desires.

The people who argue that you CANNOT prove that a man by the name of Jesus EVER existed, are the SAME PEOPLE who will say that we CAN PROVE what the earth's atmosphere and environment was 2 million years ago.

So let's be honest, and admit that while we can amass a great deal of VERY GOOD information NOW, we CANNOT say for certain what was going on hundreds of millions of years ago. That is NOT intellectually or scientifically honest.
Er... Actually, you can prove that.

Fossilized trees and sediment layers.

I'm sure someone named Jesus existed. Whether he was the messiah is another matter.
Old 03-09-2006, 05:18 PM   #36 (permalink)
Council Member
 
Dylan's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,808
Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Level up: 37%, 126 Points needed
Level up: 37% Level up: 37% Level up: 37%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Dylan is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyreay
1,300 researchers, Doctors and leaders in their fields, from 45 countries, think you are wrong. Geology, Biology, our whole understanding of science, is built on what you are now trying to call theory. Going back to such a basic argument as evolution is theory is not looking at any of the above info objectively. Why does the last sentence sound familiar? I notice a trend here to change the subject...... Sedimentary science is that advanced; on the other hand, if you think we did not evolve, just say so.
Wrong-o!

I am NOT going back to some argument about evolution.

What I AM saying is that much of what we call "science" - in regards to what we believe happened millions of years ago - is "speculation".
OK... I know this isn't a good way to respond in a debate but...

You're wrong, and you have no effing idea what you are talking about. What the Earth was like 2 million years ago isn't a theory, it's an entirely provable fact. Theories aren't even speculation anyway. They are used to unite evidence.
Old 03-09-2006, 07:09 PM   #37 (permalink)
Community Leader
 
teethandclaws's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New England Shoreline
Gender: Female
Posts: 865
Country:
Points: 4,950, Level: 44
Points: 4,950, Level: 44 Points: 4,950, Level: 44 Points: 4,950, Level: 44
Level up: 50%, 200 Points needed
Level up: 50% Level up: 50% Level up: 50%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
teethandclaws is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
On evolution.

Legally, evolution is science, and though there are differing theories on the exactness of evolution, evolution has provided evidence for it's existence.

A U.S. court in Pennsylvania has established that intelligent design cannot be taught in school. Intelligent design "advances 'a particular version of Christianity,'" and is "'nothing less than the progeny of creationism,' the belief that the world was created by God as outlined in the book of Genesis."
There are a few other instances in the following article.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/07/id_trial/

another link about the above.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGSQAC17R1.DTL

And though the pope disagrees, his chief astronomer said that intelligent design 'isn't science, even though it pretends to be,'" and that if it is "taught in schools, then it should be taught in religion or cultural history classes, but thatit should not be on the science curriculum.'"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...n_not_science/

In the latest Discover magazine, there's an article on something we have never seen before. Some new kind of virus, that is both alive and dead, but neither... the argument goes on. It is now considered possible that a virus was the first life form.

It's accepted legally and scientifically that we evolved.

Would it be so bad to have been accidental? It makes it all so much more significant. This is the one chance we have to live. Each moment is to be savored, because this is it. It helps me appreciate the life that all things are given.

If you can't get that, that's really sad.
Our Task must be to free ourselves... by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures, the whole of nature, and its beauty.
Albert Einstein

Hans Küng: "There will be peace on earth when there is peace among the world religions."
Old 03-09-2006, 11:57 PM   #38 (permalink)
Banned
 
Jefferson's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Omaha Beach
Posts: 7,298
Points: 21,921, Level: 92
Points: 21,921, Level: 92 Points: 21,921, Level: 92 Points: 21,921, Level: 92
Level up: 58%, 429 Points needed
Level up: 58% Level up: 58% Level up: 58%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Jefferson is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyreay
1,300 researchers, Doctors and leaders in their fields, from 45 countries, think you are wrong. Geology, Biology, our whole understanding of science, is built on what you are now trying to call theory. Going back to such a basic argument as evolution is theory is not looking at any of the above info objectively. Why does the last sentence sound familiar? I notice a trend here to change the subject...... Sedimentary science is that advanced; on the other hand, if you think we did not evolve, just say so.
Wrong-o!

I am NOT going back to some argument about evolution.

What I AM saying is that much of what we call "science" - in regards to what we believe happened millions of years ago - is "speculation".
OK... I know this isn't a good way to respond in a debate but...

You're wrong, and you have no effing idea what you are talking about. What the Earth was like 2 million years ago isn't a theory, it's an entirely provable fact. Theories aren't even speculation anyway. They are used to unite evidence.
No no, you CANNOT prove what the earth was like 2 million years ago. It's nothing more than an educated guess.
Old 03-09-2006, 11:58 PM   #39 (permalink)
Banned
 
Jefferson's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Omaha Beach
Posts: 7,298
Points: 21,921, Level: 92
Points: 21,921, Level: 92 Points: 21,921, Level: 92 Points: 21,921, Level: 92
Level up: 58%, 429 Points needed
Level up: 58% Level up: 58% Level up: 58%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Jefferson is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teethandclaws
On evolution.

Legally, evolution is science, and though there are differing theories on the exactness of evolution, evolution has provided evidence for it's existence.

A U.S. court in Pennsylvania has established that intelligent design cannot be taught in school. Intelligent design "advances 'a particular version of Christianity,'" and is "'nothing less than the progeny of creationism,' the belief that the world was created by God as outlined in the book of Genesis."
There are a few other instances in the following article.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/07/id_trial/

another link about the above.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGSQAC17R1.DTL

And though the pope disagrees, his chief astronomer said that intelligent design 'isn't science, even though it pretends to be,'" and that if it is "taught in schools, then it should be taught in religion or cultural history classes, but thatit should not be on the science curriculum.'"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...n_not_science/

In the latest Discover magazine, there's an article on something we have never seen before. Some new kind of virus, that is both alive and dead, but neither... the argument goes on. It is now considered possible that a virus was the first life form.

It's accepted legally and scientifically that we evolved.

Would it be so bad to have been accidental? It makes it all so much more significant. This is the one chance we have to live. Each moment is to be savored, because this is it. It helps me appreciate the life that all things are given.

If you can't get that, that's really sad.
Is this post directed at me? Because, if it is, I have no idea why you posted it, or what you're really talking about.

Are you thinking we're having a disagreement we're not having?
Old 03-10-2006, 12:38 AM   #40 (permalink)
Council Member
 
Dylan's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,808
Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53 Points: 6,624, Level: 53
Level up: 37%, 126 Points needed
Level up: 37% Level up: 37% Level up: 37%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Dylan is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyreay
1,300 researchers, Doctors and leaders in their fields, from 45 countries, think you are wrong. Geology, Biology, our whole understanding of science, is built on what you are now trying to call theory. Going back to such a basic argument as evolution is theory is not looking at any of the above info objectively. Why does the last sentence sound familiar? I notice a trend here to change the subject...... Sedimentary science is that advanced; on the other hand, if you think we did not evolve, just say so.
Wrong-o!

I am NOT going back to some argument about evolution.

What I AM saying is that much of what we call "science" - in regards to what we believe happened millions of years ago - is "speculation".
OK... I know this isn't a good way to respond in a debate but...

You're wrong, and you have no effing idea what you are talking about. What the Earth was like 2 million years ago isn't a theory, it's an entirely provable fact. Theories aren't even speculation anyway. They are used to unite evidence.
No no, you CANNOT prove what the earth was like 2 million years ago. It's nothing more than an educated guess.
Evidence:
Growth rings in petrified trees.
Differences in sediment layers.
Locations of fossils.
Rate of wear in places like waterfalls and canyons.
Types of fossils.
Plenty more.

All of these things indicate what the world was like 2 million years ago.

For example, the place I live now was under the ocean 2 million years ago.

It's just a matter of collecting and piecing together the evidence.
Reply
Page 4 of 12 < 123 4 56789101112 >

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 PM.

Defending the Truth - FAQ - Rules - Contact Us - Donate - Archive - Top

 Top Political Sites
Poltical Topsites 

Recommended Sites