• 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'

No I wasn't. My text book had this same image in it:

View attachment 67115076

If you care to declare that evolutionism hasn’t been introduced an alternative to creationism for more than a century, please do so. If not, please be more specific with your comments in the future or I won’t bother to respond.

I'm pretty sure we're not descended.from chimpanzees, but share a common ancestor, according to the actual theory and not that artists rendering.
 
Most are deceived simpletons

Hey now. That's not helpful. Ignorance of something isn't proof of ignorance of everything.

I believe differences in intellect between INDIVIDUALS are far more significant than most people consciously realize.

I'd bet the farm that if you took a handful of upper 10%ers on an island with a group of lower 30%ers ten times larger, the former would completely dominate the latter.

I can't think of any other genetic variant that creates such a profound advantage. Nobody is faster or stronger than the slowest or weakest to the degree the most intelligent are equipped to compete with the least intelligent.

Make no mistake, I come at this issue from the perspective that it is not ok for the strong to prey upon the weak. Any strength, any weakness.

I don't think intellect confers "superiority". Any more than being able to run faster than everybody else can.

It does confer a significant competitive advantage. To an "unfair" degree, IMHO.

We DO need to be watched!
 
Moderator's Warning:
Folks, stop the personal attacks, and focus on the topic, only.
 
Thankfully Romney accepts AGW theory. Rush's comment upon hearing that Romney reaffirmed his stance: "bye bye nomination."

Apparently acknowledging reality now disqualifies you from being the Republican nominee.

So it would seem. If Romney can't get the nutter vote because he isn't stuck in the 15th. century, and can't get the fundy vote for being a Mormon, can he get the nomination?

OMG! We're likely to end up with a choice between Bachmann and a second Obama term.
 
Obviously this could never be the case with the AGW alarmism so prevalent today. Only conservatives would believe such propaganda.

Yay! I get blue! (Sheik did it!)

I was just a kid, but I remember the whole DDT almost killing off all the predatory birds thing. (DDT is Good for Me!) Propaganda annoys me. Please, get me started!
 
I believe that Jesus is the son of God and all that Bible stuff. The fact about it is, it's all FAITH. You can't wholly prove any of it. Archealogists may find what they think is Noah's Ark in Turkey, they think they've found Sodom and Gomorrha, etc. But none of that really matters. The whole point of Christianity is believing WITHOUT proof. That's the hardest part for people who aren't Christian to accept.

Agree or disagree
 
Evolution doesn't work by race. It works by species. A black sheep and a white sheep both have the same levels of intelligence. How they arrive at their pigmentation is a completely different matter. Your argument is a gigantic failure.
believe it or not.... your wrong....

for example....

every breed of domestic dog( that i know of) is ONE species. All the different breeds have different aspects of average intelligence and mood tendency's and some even have instincts other don't at all (ex. herding, pointing).
 
believe it or not.... your wrong....

for example....

every breed of domestic dog( that i know of) is ONE species. All the different breeds have different aspects of average intelligence and mood tendency's and some even have instincts other don't at all (ex. herding, pointing).

Actually, not.

"The domestic dog was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Carolus Linnaeus in 1758,[19][20] and was reclassified in 1993 as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists."
 
I believe that Jesus is the son of God and all that Bible stuff. The fact about it is, it's all FAITH. You can't wholly prove any of it. Archealogists may find what they think is Noah's Ark in Turkey, they think they've found Sodom and Gomorrha, etc. But none of that really matters. The whole point of Christianity is believing WITHOUT proof. That's the hardest part for people who aren't Christian to accept.

Agree or disagree

Couldn't agree more.
 
I believe that Jesus is the son of God and all that Bible stuff. The fact about it is, it's all FAITH. You can't wholly prove any of it. Archealogists may find what they think is Noah's Ark in Turkey, they think they've found Sodom and Gomorrha, etc. But none of that really matters. The whole point of Christianity is believing WITHOUT proof. That's the hardest part for people who aren't Christian to accept.

Agree or disagree

Is it a virtue to accept such things on faith, with no proof?
 
believe it or not.... your wrong....

for example....

every breed of domestic dog( that i know of) is ONE species. All the different breeds have different aspects of average intelligence and mood tendency's and some even have instincts other don't at all (ex. herding, pointing).
Actually, not.

"The domestic dog was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Carolus Linnaeus in 1758,[19][20] and was reclassified in 1993 as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists."
Very Nice AdamT.
Selectivley Plagiarizing, or more accurately, withholding the Link to be able to MISLEAD the board by 'short-quoting' it.

Dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[.....]
Taxonomy

The domestic dog was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Carolus Linnaeus in 1758,[19][20] and was reclassified in 1993 as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists. [[//* END AdamT *//]] Overwhelming evidence from behavior, vocalizations, morphology, and molecular biology led to the contemporary scientific understanding that a single species, the gray wolf, is the common ancestor for all breeds of domestic dogs;[21][22] however, the timeframe and mechanisms by which dogs diverged are controversial.[21] Canis lupus familiaris is listed as the name for the taxon that is broadly used in the scientific community and recommended by ITIS; Canis familiaris, however, is a recognised Synonym.[23]

This is Underhanded and Unacceptable posting practice.
 
Last edited:
Religion is a form of mass insanity.

It can be, as when religion leads people to strap bombs on themselves to kill the "infidel". It is a milder form of insanity that leads people to reject modern science in favor of ancient stories.

Still, can't a shared belief lead people to work together and accomplish more than they would otherwise, whether the belief system is grounded in reality or not?

How many charities would be able to operate without having religious people volunteering and donating?
 
It can be, as when religion leads people to strap bombs on themselves to kill the "infidel". It is a milder form of insanity that leads people to reject modern science in favor of ancient stories.

Still, can't a shared belief lead people to work together and accomplish more than they would otherwise, whether the belief system is grounded in reality or not?

How many charities would be able to operate without having religious people volunteering and donating?

Very diplomatic yet true. Respect to you.
 
Interestingly, at least on study has shown that improvement in early child care (from about 4 months) can result in IQ improvement that is greater than the noted IQ differential between many of these countries. Abecedarian Early Intervention Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The effects of improved early child care are even more notable in practical effect.

Sorry, that's a no-go. Here's what's going on: We can indeed raise IQ in young children because we can totally dominate their environment and so we find that the IQ gains last only so long as that environmental control is maintained. Any parent on this board can tell you that as their children get older the parent has less and less control over how their children lead their lives. By the time that the children become teenagers, parents and educators can never again control so much of the child's environment and all early gains have been completely lost.

Even one of the fiercest critics of the book "The Bell Curve" has had to admit to a change of position. Nobel Prize winner in economics James Heckman wrote in his critique of the Bell Curve:


What little is known indicates that ability–or IQ–is not a fixed trait for the young (persons up to age 8 or so). Herrnstein noted this in IQ and the Meritocracy. Sustained high-intensity investments in the education of young children, including such parental activities as reading and responding to children, stimulate learning and further education. Good environments promote learning for young children at all levels of ability. In this sense, there is fragmentary evidence that enriched education can be a good investment even for children of low initial ability…

Future research should focus on growth and development in measured ability prior to age 15 (the age of the youngest person in the Murray-Herrnstein sample), because existing research indicates that values are formed and cognition is developed prior to that age.


He was so committed to refuting the conclusions of The Bell Curve that he actually set out a research program for himself which followed the outline he described above.

Here is his conclusion after 8 years of studying the issue of early-childhood intervention:


Another continuing blind spot in the vision of most educational planners and policy makers is a preoccupation with achievement tests and measures of cognitive skill as indicators of the success of an educational intervention. By narrowly focusing on cognition, they ignore the full array of socially and economically valuable non-cognitive skills and motivation produced by schools, families and other institutions. This emphasis also critically affects the way certain early intervention programs have been evaluated. For example, while enriched early intervention programs do not substantially alter IQ, they do substantially raise the non-cognitive skills and social competence of participants.

An important lesson to draw from the entire literature on successful early interventions is that it is the social skills and motivation of the child that are more easily altered… not IQ. These social and emotional skills affect performance in school and in the workplace. We too often have a bias toward believing that only cognitive skills are of fundamental importance to success in life.​


What Heckman discovered is actually quite well known amongst those who study intelligence. Early childhood gains disappear as the child gets older. Not a surprise.

So, if even a harsh critic of The Bell Curve concedes the following, then those who don't like these results need to up their game or show that Heckman is in error. His conclusions:

-“Their (The Bell Curve) empirical work substantiates the role of IQ in accounting for a considerable portion of ethnic differences in socioeconomic outcomes”

His own independent research designed to overturn the work presented in The Bell Curve finds that IQ is a measure of cognitive ability, that IQ is not easily altered, and that IQ is an important attribute in life.

His new strategy is what many people recognize as "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." He is pushing for the raising of non-cognitive abilities.
 
Riverdad, in case you missed this post before I was wondering if you could supply the titles of these studies you mentioned but failed to cite so that I can view them for myself.

Is he still ducking this or did he give out the source? I think since he is going so far to duck it, the source probably lacks alot of credibility.
 
Whether or not it qualifies as a fallacy (I don't believe that claim was made) it is nonetheless an appeal to authority and therefore (logically speaking) not a particularly strong argument.
Actually, logically speaking, appeal to authority of this sort is considered a strong induction.
Yes, I said it wasn't a particularly strong argument.

If a premise based on this strong induction is used in a logically valid deduction, it is presumed to be sound.
I don't think this is true. Perhaps you can provide an example.

Valid, yes. Sound, no.
 
There's actually no basis for this inference you made. All that has to be shown is that the denigration on the basis of it being a theory is not a denigration at all. The implication actually is that not all theories are the same. Some, like evolution, germ theory and gravity, are a different kind of theory than a hypothesis to be tested.
No, if you read what I said I was referring in particular to scientific theories. Your statement implied that because the theory is considered a scientific theory, we should trust it as we would the theory of gravity because it is also a scientific theory -- nonsense.

The fact that gravity (and germ) theory are also scientific theories is irrelevant. It's only pointed out by you and others so as to say "to question evolution is to question gravity." This makes no sense; one has little or nothing to do with the other.
 
It can be, as when religion leads people to strap bombs on themselves to kill the "infidel". It is a milder form of insanity that leads people to reject modern science in favor of ancient stories.

Still, can't a shared belief lead people to work together and accomplish more than they would otherwise, whether the belief system is grounded in reality or not?

How many charities would be able to operate without having religious people volunteering and donating?

Good point.
In a way isn't the belief of Santa is similiar. Behave and one is rewarded. Am a strong supporter of preserving the magic of Santa Claus.

For me the bible is the original Wikipedia where people over time added their stories. Some historically valid and others are Santa Claus-like stories handed down from generation to generation.
 
So, there are many. Why do you jump to the conclusion that grossly "oversimplified" racial distintions are useless?

Because it's about as useful as putting together people based on what letter their name starts with. The point is that population groups that are genetically similar can look very different.
 
Is it a virtue to accept such things on faith, with no proof?

One can be very analytical when it comes to religion...the kind of guy that needs proof. He can never really understand when it comes to faith. But for me, faith is enough.

Do you ever just sit back and watch a sunset, or a huge thunderstorm, or marvel at the sheer size of a huge hurricane in satellite photos, or wonder how the moon controls the tides from way out there, or how something as simple as a tree can be so complex, etc., etc.?????

Just awesome
 
Your statement implied that because the theory is considered a scientific theory, we should trust it as we would the theory of gravity because it is also a scientific theory
This is still an error on your part.

The fact that gravity (and germ) theory are also scientific theories is irrelevant. It's only pointed out by you and others so as to say "to question evolution is to question gravity." This makes no sense; one has little or nothing to do with the other.
IT is still to show that not all theories mean something that we are unsure about. Theory has an additional meaning in addition to that such as in teh cases of gravity and evolution.
 
Do you believe in an infinite universe, all things are possible?

Just for the record, theres a difference between believing there may be a god, and believing in wild stories of Jewish carpenters rising from the dead...
 
Back
Top Bottom