"You implied (falsely) that I think Conservatism is stupid because of bias"
And when was this? I don't recall having claimed to know the motivation behind your arguments.
"but the reality is I am biased against Conservatism because it is stupid."
The sad thing about this statement is that the one it's supposedly refuting itself serves as a perfect refutation to it.
"I'm going to ask you to stop saying stupid things to me."
Such as?
"Your "sarcastic slights" had nothing to do with the topic."
Other than (particularly in the case of civility) serving to facilitate a meaningful discussion, which you appear to have no interest in?
"You offered no argument,"
Because I require none. I'm not taking a stance here, I'm simply pointing out the unsubstantiated nature of your post.
"but instead attempted to seize the moral high ground"
Given the rampant, baseless namecalling on display, I doubt that was ever in question.
"You are nothing more than a petulant child."
Oh, do go on.
"Of course I am biased against things which are stupid and morally wrong."
"Stupid and morally wrong" in your thoroughly unsubstantiated opinion.
Note: the term "bias" usually implies unfairness in the prejudice in question. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't using it in that fashion.
"You threw three red herrings out there (witty, unbiased and civil)"
I fail to see how sarcastic slights qualify as a distraction tactic, particularly when I had little else to say anyway.
"to try to fool people into believing I wanted to achieve these things,"
This based on what? How can you claim me to be implying anything with my statement other than that your original post holds none of the aforementioned virtues?
"when all I actually wanted to do was tell the truth."
Are you claiming the aforementioned virtues (specifically civility) to be of secondary concern?
"You should try it sometime instead of having a tantrum whenever someone criticises your faith."
To start off, this statement not only mischaracterizes Conservatism, which is a political ideology and not, in fact, a faith-based belief set.
Further, how can you justify claiming my "having a tantrum"? Last I checked, I'm not the one hurling entirely unsubstantiated abuse at those who differ from my political views.
Finally, the term "criticism" implies the expression of disapproval based on specific actions; your first post amounted to no more than meaningless, ambiguous namecalling.
"Your apparent theory that Conservatives should be able to do anything they like to the world and the others in it without suffering "bias" is quite clearly fucking ridiculously stupid."
Agreed. Unfortunately for your straw-man argument, however, this is not a position I, or, I would imagine, any Conservatives hold.
While I hesitate to speculate on this absurd notion's origins, I suspect it to have been conjured up from the madness that is the byproduct of your social echo chamber.
"Do you take the same position when you talk about Maoists or Stalinists you snivelling hypocrite?"
If I don't take this position with a political group you're lumping me into (and I most certainly don't), why would I do so with those I disagree with?
One thing before I end off: much as you think it may be, a debate website is far from an appropriate medium to vent unwarranted anger towards those you disagree with. I understand it can be frustrating to man-children like you who throw a hissy fit when they don't get their way, but this isn't going to solve anything.
Men and women traditionally have specific roles in society, and both psychology and psychology reflect this: while there are always exceptions, men are typically stronger than women, and vary quite a bit more in regards to intellect (women are far more consistent in this respect). Further, men have traditionally been considered more expendable than women (largely due to the fact that the reproductive capability of a population is far more dependant on the number of women than men), and usually serve supporting roles (such as childcare and housework), while men are typically the "bread winner" of the household, performing more, and often dangerous, work.
This, of course, means that treating the two sexes entirely equally will result in problems for both, an example being young boys receiving poor grades in school for acting out due to natural hyperactivity.
To start off, Democracy is, as far as I know, a dead political system. What we have here in the US is a Constitutional Republic with Democratic leanings.
Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand, the "leader" of a first-world nation is (supposedly) simply the representative of the views of the majority of the population. When powerful corporations and organizations become involved in politics, things get messy, but that's the basis for it.
Looks like nothing's changed in the two months I've been gone. Actually, that's not entirely accurate; looks like you've stopped bothering to elaborate on your debate titles.
A witty, unbiased, objective, and civil argument. Oh, wait, it's a steaming pile of unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks on Conservatives.
"However I would disagree that they are the ones earning that term. Its been applied by a media that skewers perception rather then actual numbers. I agree that sterotype exists, I would say that they (Muslims) did not earn it, it was applied. Just like African Americans didn’t earn “single parent families” as reported but skewered by the media and others to straw man there society."
Last I checked, all mainstream news networks avoid controversy (especially regarding Islam) like the Plague. Since when do they portray Islam as inherently violent?
"Why is that when white Christians attack individuals they are lone wolves and have mental conditions"
To start off with, what does race have to do with this? The people groups in question are specific Monotheistic religions.
Further, these people have those labels because they acted alone, demonstrated severe mental deficiencies beforehand, and acted in complete contradiction with Christianity (which you appear to be correlating with them).
"yet when non-whites attack they are terrorists?"
To reiterate, who said anything about color? Are you implying race is inherently connected with religion?
"How do you (specifically you) say one is a terrorist and one is not"
When did I state that?
"when they both claim to be acting for god"
Name a single "Christian" mass-murderer, attempted or otherwise, who claimed to be fulfilling God's wishes.
"and to terrorize individuals who they disagree with on a religious means? "
The difference between the two is that one is a system of absolute Monotheism (meaning no tolerance of any other belief is allowed, usually on pain of death in Muslim-majority countries), while the other is based on secular, psychological abnormality.
"You are more likely to die by the hands of a white supremist then a muslim terrorist since I was born."
Your chances of being raped are also fairly low. Does that mean it's not an issue? Of course not.
"You still have a lot more hate crime against Muslims n America then by muslims."
First of all, the only reason that's the case is because Muslims are far outnumbered in terms of population.
Second, try looking at just about any Muslim-majority country, and you'll find any and all deviant beliefs or behaviors persecuted violently. Narrowing your viewpoint to only the US is like claiming a terminally cancerous organ is healthy because a significant amount of non-cancerous tissue still remains in it.
"Additionally the usa killed more civilians in the middle east last month (April) then isis in there bombing, and almost all the guns used in the conflict were supplied to both sides from USA."
Your substantiation for that claim being...?
"So yes, Christians and white males commit crimes in the larger numbers and in equal in crimes per capita as muslims."
In the US, that's entirely possible. Again, simply look at any Muslim-majority country, and tell me it's a peaceful, accepting culture.
"There have been several genocides Bosnia Serbia was Christian, Russia killing gays is Christian motivated, the new anti-gay laws in several Christian nations, the holocaust was Christian, the child rape crisis in all churches (not just RC), the sexual abuse of ministers is about 30% regardless of faith organization (see spotlight)"
Assuming all those claims are true (which you have no basis for), those actions are inherently contradictory with Christianity, whereas Islam is an intrinsically violent religion.
"Just saying, the bible promotes slavery in old and new testament, and was a justification for slavery in the usa civil war."
The connotations of "slavery" have changed drastically since Old Testament times. Back then, it was essentially being hired off as a servant by one's parents; a far cry from its modern meaning. Even then, this was under Levitican law, and therefore does not apply to Christians, who are under the New Covenant of the New Testament.
"IT tells rape victims to marry there assaulters."
That law is somewhat more tricky in its implications, but the claim you're making regarding it requires a very generous interpretation of the text.
" It promotes the killing of non-believers in old and new."
Oh? Do tell.
"I know right. So im not sure how to answer this completely."
Given that "Muslim" and "Islam" both refer to a particular religion, and neither a race nor specific organization, what confusion is there?
"I do., the claims are false and unsubstantiated and your connection is flawed."
Care to explain how crime, particularly rape, in the majority of Scandinavia has skyrocketed since the floodgates of "refugees" were opened, or how videos of said "refugees" acting aggressively towards anyone entering their newly-claimed territory are flooding the internet? Quite the conspiracy you have on your hands, there.
"The real issue was income inequality and gender roles."
What do any of the things you listed have to do with income inequality and (biologically objective) gender roles?
"Europe has several areas where integration worked find. However France put all the muslims in one area, gave them no jobs, dependent on the state and made it hard for them to integrate into society or even get full time employment. Even more so, gave them no means to actually get ahead. This was the same in the Serbian Bosnia conflict and Chicago. In places where integration was promoted and opportunity presented it went much better with no significant rise in crime or violence. You can use Canada as an example, the crime rate of immigrants is lower then the norm and the boon to the economy has been demonstrably a benefit."
Do you have any basis for this claim? If so, feel free to demonstrate how economic hardship explains the above behaviors.
"how do you black or bold some text?"
Typing "" on both sides of the text in question makes it bold. The option to do so (and others) is listed under "↓ Show Help" when posting.
EDIT: One interesting thing of note is that about a quarter of Muslims in the US believe using violence to punish those who offend Islam is morally justified, and a fifth stated violence is an appropriate measure for spreading Shariah Law (https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.
"Muslims as a group are not actively trying to win a stereotype type."
Perhaps "earn" would've been a better term.
"The black swan argument? Or is it white swan. There have been several white Christian attacks in the last few years"
Except those are rare, "lone wolves" who clearly have severe mental conditions. The Quran, on the other hand, is a hateful book quite literally filled with violent decrees against nonbelievers. Where's that in Christianity?
"Are you referring to Muslims as a race, a religion, a specific organization? Since there is no overriding org, I disagree as your definition."
What definition? None was given in the OP.
"The actual question I care about not if something is perceived. I care if something is true."
Then why not take a look at Europe, where so-called "refugees" are literally taking over territory. Their tribalism has become so terrible that even emergency services won't enter areas designated as "no-go zones".
"Actually any religious theocracy or belief based system of governance is generally less better off then there counter parts. It not just muslims. If there is an increase in secular values, or the state has a secular system of governance it tends to be better off in economic, education, over all wealth and health care. . ."
To begin with, how does this contradict my point? The only theocratic states in existence nowadays, as far as I know, are Islamic.
Further, what basis is there for the claim that secularism is specifically responsible for increasing the standards of a given society? Last I checked, it's a relatively new phenomenon, and thus has no historical basis for comparison.
"Explain how the lifespan at that time was 4 times shorter than ours."
Call me crazy, but such trivialities as culture, civilization, technology, and medical innovation may have had something to do with it.
"We don't naturally need it to survive!"
Is that why meat, dairy, and eggs are the easiest complete proteins to obtain?
"How did our ancestors even live then if they "needed" it."
Depending on how far back you're talking, they did; almost exclusively, in fact. And, surprise surprise, they were much healthier than when mass-agriculture came into being.
"Vegans also survive today without eating anything from an animal and they are perfectly healthy even more so than people that base there diet on meat."
Your basis for this claim being...?
"Also our ancestors might of needed teeth for oh you know... self defense!"
Because why use your limbs, which have much longer range and are infinitely more versatile, when you can expose your vulnerable head so you can use your teeth to defend yourself, in all likelihood suffering extreme brain damage in the process?
"Also if you look up "Plants with Protein" or "Plants with Calcium" You will see a long list of them."
How about plants with complete, healthy proteins?
"Also if you look at our intestines you will see that they relate to herbivores intestines more than a carnivores."
And? Do I need to repeat the fact that humans are omnivores? Since when does general physical resemblance equate to irrefutable correlation?
"Animals feel pain. Plants don't at least on a conscious level. Animals also understand a lot more than you think. So no It is not ethical."
How does the fact that animals are capable of feeling pain invalidate the ethicality of any consumption of meat? From what I understand, slaughtering can be quick and almost painless.
"Also genetically we are herbivores as we have molers meant for grinding leaves and plants not meat."
Interestingly, we also have canines and incisors, which are meant for tearing meat. That's why humans are classified as "omnivorous"; because they're built for both (although one does require both fat and protein to survive: the nervous system requires the former to maintain itself, and the latter is, among other things, a key component in muscle growth). How, exactly, does that make us "genetically herbivores"? If consuming meat were inherently alien to our biology, why do we naturally require it to survive?
If I recall correctly (and as you acknowledge in your last statement), I was previously on your ban list for some time. Now, being quite prideful of both my mannerisms and rationality, I can't say I've ever been "deceptive," "childish," and "vulgar," particularly on a debate site. Would you kindly inform me, then, as to the reasoning behind my ban?
I considered whether responding to this post of yours was worth the time; fortunately, I have nothing better to do, and I'm actually somewhat impressed you finally provided evidence. Let's begin, shall we?
"Your first lie was exposed regarding your misuse of the term hypothesis"
That being? How can you accuse me of misusing a term you've thus far refused to define?
"and then your confusion was demonstrated by you admitting that Evolution was not a hypothesis."
First of all, the quote you used explicitly contradicted your claim. After you used it, I again explicitly contradicted your claim, so how, exactly, have you proven your point?
Second, even if you were correct, isn't admitting to one's own self-contradiction admitting to having lied? As that's the case, why do you use this to accuse me of lying and my allegedly misusing the term "hypothesis" (which implies confusion)? Seems to me you yourself are confused in regards to your accusations.
"This is your usual little dance and a pathetic tactic used by creationists to avoid accepting that evolution in FACT so let's have some facts regarding my claim"
First of all, to reiterate, a scientific hypothesis (or derivatives thereof [theories and laws]) is incapable of being a rationally irrefutable fact. The closest it can come is being supported by the majority of facts derived from objective experimentation and observation.
Second, these "facts" are circumstantial at best. Let's go over each one:
1. Common Ancestry: Claiming this interesting phenomenon (that certain groups of animals and fossils assumed to be their direct ancestors have certain similar, apparently arbitrary traits) proves Darwinian Evolution falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization; it necessarily implies that, because certain animals have certain similar traits, they must also have other similar qualities (such as ancestry and conception). At best, this evidence is circumstantial, and even then has nothing to do with the actual hypothesis itself (it has no bearing on whether mutation is capable of indefinitely accruing, the fundamental contention regarding Darwinian Evolution).
2. Observed Change in Species: This argument is one of the more common ones, and essentially claims that, because Natural Selection (an observable phenomenon) takes place, Darwinian Evolution (an unsubstantiated hypothesis) must also take place (more commonly referred to as "Macro- vs micro-evolution," though I believe I've already pointed out my preference for the former, as it's far more clear). In short, this argument is meaningless: it relies solely on an abuse of ambiguity, and in no way substantiates the fundamental premise of Darwinian Evolution that mutation is indefinitely capable of accrual.
3. I'm not entirely sure what to say about this one... The only point it conceivably has is to tie into the first point, which I've already demonstrated the invalidity of.
"Comparative anatomy is the comparison of the structures of different living things. This figure compares the skeletons of humans, cats, whales, and bats, illustrating how similar they are even though these animals live unique lifestyles in very different environments."
Already pointed out the problem here.
"The best explanation for similarities like the ones among these skeletons is that the various species on Earth evolved from common ancestors. "
Or, and just hear me out for a second, those traits are simply pretty handy ones for creatures to have. That doesn't necessitate Darwinian Evolution.
"Biogeography, the study of living things around the globe, helps solidify Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. Basically, if evolution is real, you’d expect groups of organisms that are related to one another to be clustered near one another because related organisms come from the same common ancestor. On the other hand, if evolution isn’t real, there’s no reason for related groups of organisms to be found near one another. When biogeographers compare the distribution of organisms living today or those that lived in the past (from fossils), they find that species are distributed around Earth in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships to one another."
Again, circumstantial evidence at best. This doesn't necessitate Darwinian Evolution, either; Natural Selection itself perfectly explains this (of course species in similar environments would select similar traits).
"Molecular biology focuses on the structure and function of the molecules that make up cells. Molecular biologists have compared gene sequences among species, revealing similarities among even very different organisms."
Once again, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that these similar patterns are simply an efficient means of structuring an organism. It proves nothing.
"Modern examples of biological evolution can be measured by studying the results of scientific experiments that measure evolutionary changes in the populations of organisms that are alive today. In fact, you need only look in the newspaper or hop online to see evidence of evolution in action in the form of the increase in the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
This argument, once again, abuses the ambiguity of the term "evolution" to take an obvious fact (Natural Selection) and equate it to an unsubstantiated hypothesis (Darwinian Evolution).
"Radioisotope dating estimates the age of fossils and other rocks by examining the ratio of isotopes in rocks. Isotopes are different forms of the atoms that make up matter on Earth. Some isotopes, called radioactive isotopes, discard particles over time and change into other elements. Scientists know the rate at which this radioactive decay occurs, so they can take rocks and analyze the elements within them. Radioisotope dating indicates that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is plenty old enough to allow for the many changes in Earth’s species due to biological evolution."
Radioactive dating is far from reliable: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/
"You've already asked your question regarding alteration via mutation in your last debate so why are you asking again ?"
To what question are you referring? You've demonstrated yourself capable of quoting, so why not do so when context is required?
"Regarding facts the definition I gave is accepted by rational beings you claiming the accepted definition is absurd demonstrates your continued confusion over the simplest of definitions i will attempt to explain it very simply for you yet again ,"
The quote you provided was thoroughly flawed, as I rationally pointed out. If you were to do the unthinkable and explicitly and rationally point out some flaw in my definition, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
"In science , there is no such thing as ' irrefutable proof ' . Unlike religion , true science always accepts the possibility that some new evidence may appear that changes what we previously believed , if that happens , we change our understanding accordingly ."
That depends heavily on what the object of the "proof" is. If said object is a scientific hypothesis (the relationship between the two being causation), certainly. If, on the other hand, the object is an observation, rather than an explanation (I.E. "The Sun, from our perspective, moves across the sky during the day" [a fact] vs "The Sun, from our perspective, moves across the sky during the day because the Earth rotates around it" [a hypothesis based on objective observation]), objectivity is definitely within reach.
"There is convincing evidence of human evolution that so far has not being undermined ."
"Convincing" is largely subjective. Someone who wants something to be true, for example, is likely to be more easily convinced by a given piece of evidence substantiating that thing. Perhaps a more useful term (though even less rational in this context) would be "rationally convincing".
"Nothing else accounts for what we see , I've made a claim stating that there was a vast body of evidence in support , now I can provide links to various sites or recommend reading material , you might be better off starting at the basics as you seem totally unaware of the various excellent sites and resources that cover the topic in more detail even though I and other have given you various links to sites in the past .
You may want to start with the basics so for you I would recommend Evolution for dummies , if you find this primer a little ' tough ' give me a shout and I will talk you through it ."
As I read your thoroughly condescending post, I can't help but amusingly recall your avid fixation on "you is" being a valid form of "to be". Not really an argument, just a musing.
Anyway, let's take a look at the site, shall we? Actually, after quickly scanning it, there doesn't appear to be any new information here. Never mind, then (I can only repeat the same arguments so many times rationally unchallenged before I tire of it).
"facts to show percentages wise religions that deny evolution as fact , which demonstrates what percentage are ignorant as a denial of accept fact would be deemed ignorant in your case you wear your ignorance like a badge of honour."
Is that so? Because I distinctly recall pointing out that science is not monolithic; rejecting a single hypothesis is not equivalent to rejecting science itself. Further, I have no memory of you ever explicitly challenging this point, yet you still repeat it? Oh, joy, more of this. And here I thought we were making progress.
"It makes me wonder why people like you have not once had one peer reviewed paper published"
That in particular may have something to do with the fact that I'm not legally an adult (though, as you're clearly demonstrating, that's not much of a high bar nowadays), much less a scientist with years of research under my belt.
Oh goody, another link; and this one even betrays its irrational nature in the title!
The only points I can find here that address arguments I've actually used are 7 (regarding Abiogenesis) and, possibly, 11 (regarding the limitations of Natural Selection). The former disregards the fact that life, which is claimed to be created by impartial, unguided forces under largely random conditions, has yet to be synthesized by an intelligent, extremely technical force (man) under theoretically optimal conditions. It simply doesn't add up. The latter, on the other hand, subscribes to the aforementioned folly of abusing equivocal words, and is therefore relatively unmentionable.
Interestingly enough, the claims this article produces, keeping to the same vein of yours, have absolutely no substantiation: it cites no references, instead simply possessing these bare, entirely unsubstantiated statements.
"Saying I have a serious mental condition"
Assuming you legitimately believe in the truthhood of your self-contradicting statements, anyway.
"coming from a young earth creationist"
Who said anything about being a Young Earth Creationist? No statement I've made has either stated or implied that personal belief.
"who firmly aligns himself with the mentally unstable John Morris"
On what basis? Casually using an article from that source due to its convenience (it was the first result that came up, and I didn't particularly care) is not equivalent to "firmly aligning" oneself with said source.
"My moral superiority is based on the fact that I do not have to resort to the tired and lame exercise of claiming you have a serious mental condition which is typical of the type of more unsavoury Christian hypocrite on CD"
Actually, I believe you've more than once accused me of being delusional, which is itself a medically significant psychological ailment, but do continue.
Another interesting detail is that I didn't use my casual suggestion of mental illness as an argument; I was merely pointing out that honestly believing in your demonstrably false (not to mention ludicrous) statements would indicate as much.
"my intellectual superiority is demonstrated by knowing the difference between terms"
And, you appear to be forgetting, absolutely refusing to explicitly define said terms?
Yet again reminding me of your "you is" tirade. To this day, I'm still quite amused by it.
"You will of course not reply because my claims are factual"
Whoops, too late. I really must apologize, though; my usual timely replies have been curbed as of recent due to my increasing workload (and, to an extent, my growing boredom with your ranting).
"my accusations accurate and entirely rational , you off course will state the opposite as you do in every debate you're soundly defeated in and always use the self same ' get out of jail card"
And you wonder why I question your mental integrity.
Last I checked, you hold and maintain a somewhat extensive ban list of your more vocal opponents, so it's not terribly surprising that they don't respond to your statements (which are, quite ironically, almost exactly like those of certain other persons, if opposite in ideological polarity).
"First I will attempt to correct your continued confusion then I will demonstrate how you contradict yourself and deliberately lie using your words is that fair ?"
Not only am I a liar, apparently, but I'm also self-contradictory and confused? Great! If only you could provide any sort of substantiation for any of these accusations.
"Again your misunderstanding of basic terms is very telling In science, a hypothesis and a theory differs in that a hypothesis is a conjecture based on empirical observation or theoretical derivation yet unproven or by any experimental work, and that a theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested by many researchers and supported by strong evidence."
That's more or less what I stated. Your point?
"Evolution is a theory that has been repeatedly tested, supported by overwhelming evidence, and can be used to explain natural phenomenon very well."
Really? Care to provide any scientific experiment or observation that indicates genetic information is capable of indefinite alteration via mutation? Because I certainly haven't seen any.
"A fact is something that is postulated to have occurred or to be correct."
That's absurd; that definition implies facts are subjective.
"The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means)."
Yet again, almost exactly what I've stated. What's your point?
"Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence."
You're the one claiming the existence of this apparently vast body of data supporting Darwinian Evolution. It falls solely on you, making a positive claim and therefore having the burden of proof, to present this evidence.
"Here you are agreeing Evolution is not a hypothesis"
Really? In the quote you later add (the one I assume you're referring to here), I explicitly state that the term "scientific fact" is not intrinsically an oxymoron when applied to specific facets of science: objective observation and experimentation. Not once did I ever state or imply that a hypothesis is rationally capable of being regarded as a "scientific fact". How, exactly, does this make me a liar?
"So tell where have you or any of your fellow deniers demonstrated that the evidence supporting is wrong ?"
I never said anything remotely like that. What I have said, however, is that direct, irrefutable evidence requiring or even implying the validity of Darwinian Evolution is nonexistent. Those two statements are not equivalent, therefore attributing the former to me is fallacious.
"Again just to repeat myself again as you seem to ignore what I stated regarding fact"
Again, just to repeat myself, as you seem to ignore that I rationally demonstrated your statement regarding fact to be incorrect: facts are most definitely absolute certainty.
"Regarding facts and theories your misunderstanding of how the two terms are used by scientists is telling as I said and explained countless times Evolution is both fact and theory ."
First of all, if I'm misunderstanding the terms in question (which you have no basis for, but I'm sure minor details like that are beneath bothering you), how can I possibly be dishonest about them, as you also claim?
Second, I've previously pointed out exactly why "Evolution" is not "both fact and theory" (to reiterate: "Evolution" can refer to both Darwinian Evolution and Natural selection [the former being a hypothesis, the latter a fact]; just because both have the same synonym doesn't mean both are equally valid, or even related [for example, the term "lead" can refer both to a soft metal and the action of managing a group of people, two entirely unrelated concepts]), and you have yet to refute my argument. How, exactly, do you expect to win with nothing but repetition?
"So now you state that great liberties have been taken with the fossil record and baseless assumptions made ?"
Seeing as said substantiation requires the largely baseless assumption that particular fossils are related, yes.
"Ah I see that's the implication of my argument , whilst failing to acknowledge that I've stated to another poster on this thread that I'm married to a Christian and I've debated with some very intelligent and well read Christians , I'm demonstrating and have indeed proven that religions breed ignorance as in Evolution deniers you're a living breathing example of what I claim ."
Really? You insist multiple times that "you is" is a valid second-person form of "to be", maintain that Darwinian Evolution is factual in blatant disregard of the scientific method, attempt to win debates by repeating the same baseless claims and accusations over and over, and yet you have the audacity to claim I'm the one breeding ignorance?
"Also there are more religions than Christianity and one only has to look at religions like Islam and ask does it breed ignorance and impede progress as a religion ?"
Because Islam is a barbaric, violence-based religion. Are you implying that because a particular religion "breeds ignorance and impedes progress", all religions do? If you're not implying this, then what relevance does this point have to the discussion? Redundant as this feels to point out, that reasoning falls under the fallacy of "hasty generalization".
"I know you don't care about stats or facts you've demonstrated that , funnily enough a fair proportion of American Christians are also climate change deniers , another demonstration of religion breeding ignorance ."
I'm not particularly interested in going into this matter at the moment, so I'll just point out that you have no basis for your implication that denial of Global Warming (or Climate Change, as it's now called) is equivalent to "breeding ignorance" and be done with it.
"Everything I've pointed out so far I've done so in a rational manner ,"
I'm having quite a hard time telling whether you're serious or not.
"I've backed all my claims up"
Such as?
"and my accusations about you lying I've proved by using your own words"
The one quote you provided failed to substantiate your accusation in the slightest, and even explicitly refuted it.
"So let's again demonstrate how easily you lie again in your own words in a previous encounter here you are ,"
Since when is a source considered "in one's own words"?
There's no point in explicitly refuting the rest of your statements; they're all vague, baseless accusations.
Once again, I'm questioning whether you legitimately believe what you're stating (in which case, given the blatant contradictions with reality [particularly in regards to claiming substantiation for all of your statements], it seems apparent you have a serious mental condition) or not (if so, what are you doing on a debate website?). Also once again, if you perpetuate your tirade of baseless claims and accusations, no rational discussion is possible, therefore I will discontinue this discussion. If, on the other hand, you're willing to be, at the very least, rational, I'd be happy to continue. Given our previous engagements, however, and your apparently fanatical fixation on your perceived moral and intellectual superiority, I doubt it.
"Evolution is not a hypothesis"
Its substantiating evidence is circumstantial at best (seeing as the scale on which it allegedly takes place precludes observation), and has several fundamental flaws (my favorites being the lack of any evidence, despite our vast body of knowledge, of a species' ability to mutate into a dissimilar species and experiments attempting to substantiate Abiogenesis failing, particularly under theoretically optimal [and, quite frankly, generous] conditions). A scientific theory, which would be the next step up from a hypothesis, is a hypothesis substantiated by the bulk of current data. Seeing as current data is largely either indifferent to it or discredits it, one cannot rationally claim it to be a theory. It follows, then, that it's a hypothesis.
"and who mentioned irrefutable fact ?"
Perhaps I should have been more clear with my wording: any concept is inherently refutable; my meaning of the term "irrefutable" was "rationally irrefutable", which, while redundant (seeing as a fact is, by definition, an objectively verifiable piece of information [or sound logical extrapolation thereof]), would be somewhat more clear.
"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty."
This alleged scientist's own statement contradicts their point; if facts and theories are two exclusive concepts (which I have no disagreement with), then how can Darwinian Evolution be both? It's rational suicide.
"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."
There most certainly is. For example, when I make the statement "the vast majority of the ocean is comprised of water", objective observation by numerous persons dictates that it is indeed an absolute certainty.
"The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world."
Mathematics and logic are themselves abstract concepts, and therefore capable of objectivity, but they can (and are) both soundly applied to reality as we know it. If a mathematical or logical proof is entirely unrelated to reality (as this alleged scientist appears to be claiming must be the case), it is meaningless and therefore irrelevant to science. And yet, such proofs are the very backbone of science. It follows, then, that mathematical and logical proofs are capable of directly correlating to reality, and since they are in fact objective, it follows then that objectivity can be applied to reality.
"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. "
Ah, I see. Here we hit the common issue of Darwinian Evolution vs Natural Selection (often referred to as "Macro- vs Micro-evolution", though I find the former to be much clearer). This argument is, depending on its usage, what is often referred to as a "bait and switch": it begins with a factual definition of a term, such as "Evolution is an observable phenomenon; animals have been seen adapting to their surroundings via mutation" (in this statement, "evolution" refers to the process of Natural Selection, which is an objectively verifiable phenomenon), and then abuses the equivocality of that term in an attempt to substantiate the concept expressed in the alternate meaning with the objectivity of the concept expressed in the original meaning, in this instance abusing the term "evolution"'s two meanings of "Natural Selection" (the observable phenomenon) and "Darwinian Evolution" (the unsubstantiated hypothesis). In short, the fact that these two concepts share the same name (though one is typically capitalized while the other isn't) does not make them equal in validity.
"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry."
The only possible basis for this claim is historical evidence, in this case being the great taking of liberties regarding baseless assumptions with the fossil record.
"No , I never stated what you claim as in if one rejects Evolution one also rejects the entireity of science so why are you lying ?"
That's a necessary implication of your argument; your claim is that "religion breeds ignorance and impedes progress", clearly relating to science. Your only substantiation for this claim is that particular religious groups are particularly likely to reject Darwinian Evolution. Assuming you would also claim your supporting evidence to be directly related to your claim (which I'm sure you'll agree to), it follows that you're claiming a relationship between rejecting Darwinian Evolution and "breeding ignorance and impeding progress". My point was simply that that claim, which is necessarily implied in your argument, is absurd.
"The stats I posted are from PEW research center and demonstrate the ignorance I speak of ."
I don't particularly care about the statistics; as I pointed out, they bear no relevance to your central claim. Ironically, even now, you're coming ever closer to explicitly claiming a (nonexistent) relationship between rejecting Darwinian Evolution and rejecting science as a whole.
"That's funny considering our last encounter where you claimed that the scientific community refused to acknowledge or give a fair hearing to creationist rebuttals of Evolutionary theory ; I think you will find the circular reasoning will be entirely yours as deliberately lying to make your position seem justified has not worked either ."
I certainly would if you pointed it out in a rational manner, rather than simply repeating the same baseless claims and accusations over and over again.
"Feel free to post up,your usual counters from answers in genesis or have you a new source ?"
Your apparent obsession with my (admittedly lazy) use of that particular source is somewhat confusing; is that the only legitimate criticism you found of my statements, and are therefore clinging to it, or have you simply added it to your aforementioned list of baseless claims and accusations?
Claiming biology to be entirely based on Darwinian Evolution is absurd. The only relevance the latter has to the former is an explanation of origin; it's not a prerequisite for anything relating to the actual study, particularly in regards to medicine, other than possibly history.
Even if some magical correlation does exist between Darwinian Evolution and medicine, it still doesn't imply causation; the two are not equivalent.
Where to even begin?
Let's start with the readily apparent: Darwinian Evolution, being a scientific hypothesis, is incapable of being rationally regarded as irrefutable fact. It follows, then, that anyone believing it to be such holds an irrational belief, and either doesn't understand the scientific method or chooses to ignore it.
Further, the fundamental premise of this debate is flawed: it assumes that, because a good many religious persons reject Darwinian Evolution, that they also reject the entirety of science (thereby being ignorant and, apparently, impeding scientific progress), the implication being that rejecting a particular scientific hypothesis is equivalent to rejecting science as a whole. As one learns when being taught the basics of science, this is absurd; a scientific hypothesis can be rejected for a multitude of reasons (such as insufficient supporting data or significant data to the contrary), and in doing so, one makes no statement whatsoever about science as a whole; in other words, science is not doctrinal.
Even if the above were entirely false, the argument presented in the OP is fundamentally flawed: on top of the aforementioned issues, it implies that acceptance of Darwinian Evolution is the cornerstone of all science, a self-evident absurdity.
Unfortunately, pointing this all out yet again will, in all likelihood, prove ultimately fruitless. Assuming the original poster responds, I expect more of the same circular reasoning built on baseless assumptions.
"Possibly, but if they don't have time they can delegate this responsibility to someone they broadly agree with."
Is that not the very definition of a Representative Democracy?
"This would weaken the voting power of those who are uninformed and strengthen that of those who are informed while still maintaining fairness."
How, exactly, would your proposed system ensure the informed possess the most voting power? Just because one person designates another to share their voting power doesn't mean the latter person is necessarily more informed than the former.
"I'm not sure it would, we deal with regular voting just fine"
On a State or County level. We, as a people, only ever vote on a national level once in four years, and on a single issue. Just imagine, with our current legislature, how much more time and resources voting on many federal issues every year would require.
"All that would change is the amount of info on each ballot."
And frequency of voting, that being the issue at hand. Unless, of course, you'd be willing to have a single, massive period of voting annually or semi-annually, in which case every single issue requiring a federal vote would necessarily be put on hold for at least several months. Our government is slow enough as it is; can you imagine waiting the better part of a year to decide whether we're, for example, going to go to war or not?
"I think wherever possible government should be as localized as possible (central government is of course necessary for some functions). As such I would suggest that the majority of proposals would be voted on at the district and state level."
They are. In fact, as far as I know, the majority of States already have democratic voting systems for the majority of State issues (Texas being the one exception that immediately comes to mind).
With a country whose population numbers in the hundreds of millions over fifty politically separate arbitrary designations of land, requiring or even allowing every single one of those people to take part in every single decision made by government would be a nightmare; for a start, much more of people's lives would necessarily be taken up by researching the best course of action to take on a given issue. Further, voting on said issue would take an astronomical amount of time, resources, and manpower to facilitate.
In short, it's necessary to designate figures to represent the people; those who can reasonably spend the majority of their time on these issues because it's their career. Lowering the number of voters in the system by an order of 500,000 clearly negates the aforementioned costs, bringing them down to easily manageable levels.
They both have their place: books greatly assist the development of one's vocabulary (and, depending on the book, general knowledge), while video games either serve to improve one's reflexes (skill-based games) or or logic-based problem solving (strategy-based games).
In regards to their purpose as specifically entertainment, it mostly comes down to preference. One is a linear, non-interactive story (which has its own charm to it), while the other can be just about anything under the sun.
A couple things I forgot to mention in my previous post:
1. Even if your argument concerning media were entirely true, it would still lend no credence to your claim regarding oligarchical genocide.
2. Keep in mind, the dichotomy presented in this debate is whether Capitalism or Communism is the better economic system; my position is that Capitalism is the superior of the two, therefore yours, in refuting mine, is necessarily the opposite (the position that Communism is the superior of the two). And yet, you have failed thus far to either contradict my statements regarding the latter (specifically my mention of the aforementioned oligarchical genocide it invariably causes), or even present any merit of it whatsoever. Even if you can irrefutably prove Capitalism to be a terrible economic system (which is, in my opinion, rather unlikely), you'd still have to demonstrate Communism to be superior to it to substantiate your side.
"The news that we're given from our media...(statement shortened for the sake of brevity)...people need to wake up and learn that this is true."
While I agree that conventional media is a poor source of information, your argument would've worked quite a bit better several decades ago, when conventional media was actually relevant. Nowadays, with the wonders of the internet and the freedom of information that comes with it, conventional media is all-but obsolete, excepting the few elderly persons who still give it credence.
"I don't know if your sources are credible, but according to the last report the Census Bureau conducted more than 45 million people live below the poverty line."
I don't doubt that, but what does it really mean? Let's take the FPL (Federal Poverty Line) for a household with a single person: $11,880 yearly (https://obamacare.net/
"If you don't believe that listen to this, The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP (food stamps), counted almost 43.6 million people in the program in April 2016, the most recent data available."
Food Stamps, like just about every other federal welfare program, are extremely vulnerable to abuse. Why, for example, spend money on food when you could spend it on trivial interests or sheer impulsiveness? All it does is largely unconditionally provide people a means of spending more money.
"Many people that receive food stamps have a full time job, they work from 9-5 if not longer and still need food stamps to be able to get by."
Care to provide any actual examples?
"SO explain to me how this system works, people work hard and long and still can't get by without help."
Remember how the US stagnated in the early 1900's while the rest of the world innovated continuously, producing wonders such as cheap steel production and the first motor vehicles? Me neither, seeing as both inventions (and many more) were purely American exploits.
"It's not the government alone that's involved, it's the corporations that lobby the government. Billion dollar corporations lobby both parties and so they hedge their bets. So it doesn't matter who wins, in the end they get what they want."
Lobbying has nothing to do with Capitalism itself; it's an illegitimate political practice, not a fundamental facet of a free market.
"but it's not illegal if you call it lobbying or campaign donations."
It most certainly is, regarding donations, anyway. Entities, by law, have restrictions on campaign donations. I recommend you look up the relevant legislation.
"Loopholes are not illegal warren buffet admitted to using legal loopholes and only paying a lower rate than his employees."
First of all, the IRS, a government organization, is solely responsible for ensuring taxes are paid as they should be. If they're not, the fault lies with them.
Second, even with such an apparently low tax rate, the top ten percent of earners, to reiterate, account for the majority of tax revenue. Even if rates are comparatively lower, the only thing that really matters is actual revenue, which, given your own admission of their frankly absurd wealth, is quite disparate between groups of taxpayers.
And when we did have a 91% tax rate our budget was at a surplus, can you guess where our budget is now?"
Are you implying that tax rates on the rich is the sole, or even major, factor concerning the federal budget?
"I used to live in Jamaica Queens, a lot of my friends only got to eat in school and pretty much ate little to no food at home."
Not to make light of the presented circumstances, but given the fact that Jamaica is a middle-class NY neighborhood, and the previously stated financial statistics, I dare say the cause of those childrens' lack of food was a lack of financial responsibility on the part of their parents. Besides, if Food Stamps are so great, why didn't they just apply for them?
"Every single one of them raised their hands, so deeply offensive did they find the notion of any tax increase at all, even one that would allow enormous progress on another goal they claimed to hold dear."
Tell me, when has the government throwing more money at a problem (with no responsibility or accountability, as it appears to be terminally incapable of creating) ever solved an issue in a reasonably efficient manner, or even at all?
