Islam and Muhammad debate

Another debate at Liberal Forum, this time dealing with the religion of Islam and its history. Click HERE to view it and enjoy!

Two debates are online

I have posted two major debates about Intelligent Design and Biblical exegesis. You can also use the Debates tab to find them and other future debates as I try to find at least some people trying to be honest and critical with their thinking and debate approach. You be the judge.

Please read and sign-up on the Geopolicy Forums to comment or bring a challenge.

New debate @ Liberal Forum

*UPDATE:* Looks like the debate is over. Full breakdown of most riveting parts ;p, can be found HERE. Enjoy.

Big debate on whether or not Intelligent Design is Science… GASP! I am the poster subzer0, check it out HERE. Trust me it gets better as the pages go on.

Then discuss HERE.

Enjoy!

tharock220, on 25 October 2010 – 04:45 PM, said:

I’m going to start a little game. It’s called Restan’s Buzzword Bingo, stolen from Dilbert of course. Every time restan uses a biology buzzword(genetic, biochemistry, etc) the first person to point it out gets a point. I’ll paypal the first person to five points a $1000 check. I think I’ve demonstrated I know far more about genetics than you do. 

Joking aside, what separates you from other great apes. I’ve already asked the question but got no answer. What’s a great ape??? Can you point to a single characteristic diagnostic to them that humans don’t possess???

subzer0 response
Merely because humans possess the same characteristics as apes doesn’t mean that they are or have to be related, as I have already shown to you through convergent evolution. I have shown your taxonomy lacking from sources. Your hierarchical taxonomic system DEMANDS assumption that the only way is common ancestry.

You choose to believe it is all.

sigsfried, on 25 October 2010 – 05:36 PM, said:

What convergent evolution can explain the telomeres in the middle of the chromosome. 

Ok if you don’t believe in evolution why do genetic algorithims, which mimic evolution, work so well?

subzer0 response
Chromosomes are genetic traits. Convergent evolution is the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages.

I believe in biological evolution to an observed limit. This includes processes/mechanisms of mutation, environmental pressures, natural selection, speciation etc that produce ONLY phenotype change.

Convergent evolution is a type of biological evolution can be called convergent phenotypes as that is the result.

Let the debate begin! Geopolicy Forums are LIVE!

*UPDATE*: Forum registration now fully functional! Sorry about the trouble… Now let the debate begin! :)

Forums are in effect. Bring it on, let the debate begin! There have been recent comments upon the nature of evolution within recent political debates. Perhaps we can start there?!

Either way, Click HERE and join the Geopolicy Forums! Be one of the first to start posting and debating, a most critical foundation of knowledge and science and to the long-lasting life of our republic.

Debate going down @ The Right Scoop

Here it is folks, an intense debate by yours truly, and commenter Dan_Tumser. This was sparked by Christine O’Donnell debate against Chris Coons dealing with teaching the theory of evolution. The Right Scoop has the Beck commentary in video form. O’Donnell was questioning Coons governing philosophy of not allowing states to control school curriculum.

Also, spark up debate in the comments here! Bring it on! This is what Conservatives do, we are not afraid of the ideas.

Some highlights:

Dan_Tumser responding to geopolicy (Tony):

From your language I have to ask if you accept the veracity of cladistic phylogenetics. If this is the case then where do you draw the line in the nested hierarchy separating the “kinds,” and “sorts?” By what basis do you do this and how is it not arbitrary?Responding;
1. Look at any phylogenetic “Tree of Life,” and taxonomic classifications combined with fossil aging, the strata they have been found in and genetic analysis. Working backwards, Homo Sapiens is found as a species of Hominoidea (apes) which is part of the Anthropoidea clade. Go further back and you hit Primates.You can’t outgrow your ancestry. If you accept cladistic phylogeny at all you will need to accept the monophyletic hierarchy, which with the studies I listed and more is constructed chronologically, morphologically and when we have access to the genome, genetically, and they all line up. 

The process of systematic classification set up by the hard-line creationist Carrolus Linneaus puts us both in the apes, which comes from monkeys, making us both. He knew and admitted this himself, his challenge to the scientific community was to find an explanation for this or refute it. It has not been refuted, the basics of his taxonomy are the basis of a much more detailed and extensive system today. What did happen though was the Theory of Evolution explains this perfectly.

If the word monkey means anything at all, you and I qualify, accept it.

2. There are multiple different kinds of Speciation actually, there isn’t only what you see with ring species. What you describe is Parapatric & Peripatric speciation, but you leave out Sympatric speciation, Phyletic speciation and Punctuated Equilibrium.

Your example of the frog and fish is absurd, what you describe would in fact disprove the Evolution you claim it would evidence. It’s essentially the same as asking for a Crocoduck, and I hope you don’t like Kirk Cameron. As I showed in my response to #1, you can’t outgrow your ancestry, a frog’s descendants will always be a frog just as we will always be apes. That’s how taxonomy works.

Evolution doesn’t say such radical changes happen in single generation, something like that would be so genetically disimilar to even it’s nearest relatives even hybridization would be impossible. Evolution happens over long periods of successive incremental changes. You know this, you are either strawmanning or are misinformed.

What you say actually happens is what I compared to walking 20ft, but for some reason you insist on a barrier with no evidence stopping species from reaching the 20miles.

3. Then explain to me the Design/creation explanations for Atavisms and the ERVs in our 3billion base pair genome that we share in common with other apes in the EXACT same places. Also the evidenced relationship of T-rex and modern Aves.

4. You essentially claim induction for design is sufficient over methological naturalism. It is a leap to supernatural causation. I don’t understand why people still rely on the Teleological Argument, Hume and Kant eviscerated it ages ago.

You seem to be operating under a misapprehension. “neo-darwinists,” if you are so fond of the word, don’t say that genetic drift and environmental pressures worked any differently in the past. You point to several things that are actually argued by people like myself and somehow claim that it is evidence against our side of the public debate (there is no debate among biologists).

There is nothing about Evolution that says a frog would give birth to something so radically different as a “fish” and not be a frog. That would disprove Evolution and be evidence for creation. You concede that new species can develop so I have to ask again in case it got lost in the rest of my post.

The textbooks of ID say that the designer poofs these basic archetypes into existence fully formed, so what are your definitions of the “kinds,” “sorts,” or archetypes? How far back in the phylogenetic record do you go to start work with your scissors and arbitrarily cut clades out to move them off to the side arising seperately.

Examples will do, since the wording would probably be pretty vague.

(I’m working on a paper while I write this, if that was unclear, please say so and I’ll edit or fix in another post)

Geopolicy – Tony response

2. You are all wrong. Speciation has several types which are; Allopatric, peripatric, sympatric, parapatric speciation types. All dealing with extremes of geographical isolation.
Punctuated Equilibria, or PE, is not a type of speciation. It is an attempt by Stephen Jay Gould to explain the observation of lack of gradualism in the fossil record originally proposed to be there by Darwin. Gould asserts that species can change instantaneously on geologic time scales (i.e thousands of years). Speciation is the mechanism, in its many forms that could have caused PE. PE is not speciation proper.
20 feet to 20 miles. OK fine, that is completely in line with creationist thinking because the thing walking 20 miles didn’t change drastically or come from the same single cell or whatever. To follow the logic further, many different base patterns walked 20 miles genetically developing similar conserved areas along the way through convergent evolution. Into what we can observe today.3. Its a biological evolution explanation not ID or creationist. The biological evolution process is called Convergent evolution. Convergent evolution causes the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages.4. Methodological naturalism or the Scientific Method essentially, is used significantly with ID. That is how you derive that things were designed not spontaneously happening or created in the first place. ID determines things are guided, not unguided and spontaneously happening. 

4a. A frog has to give birth to something radically different after generations. If it doesn’t than how can we have one single common ancestor? Answer is, we don’t, we have poly base patterns and poly processes that formed the tree of life that we try to follow in the fossil record today with incredible neo-darwinist assumption and bias.

4b. No ID textbook ever states that the “designer poofs these basic archetypes.” You have to separate foundations of study and interpretation if you are to understand. That sentence I quoted from you is the origin of life discussion, centered on philosophy or theology of creationism. Frankly its pretty disrespectful how you present it as well…

Quick note… Now that we know we are dealing with philosophy and theology rather then scientific observation. God could of quite possibly utilized abiogenesis, designing it to create life out of nothing. You see there is a blending of philosophy/theology and science there, that is creationist language. So, to be scientific or like an ID theorist and not a creationist, the answer is: “abiogenesis was designed to happen.”

The use of language in that manner escapes otherwise intelligent scientists forcing them to commit philosophical bias within peer-reviewed science articles.

m_quick post

This is getting ridiculous. When Beck says ignoramus crap like this it discredits everything else he says. Rush and Beck (and probably a lot of conservatives) should just stop trying to talk about science.Seriously, he sounds like an idiot. No one says we evolved from monkeys. There are about 2 dozen “missing links” from a common ancestor of all primates to homo sapians. He can easily look this up. From Australopithecus to Homo habilis to Homo ergaster etc.We have google. There’s no excuse. 

geopolicy (Tony) response

Why do these different missing links have to prove one common ancestor? Why couldn’t there be two ancestors or many original ancestors, or can be called base patterns? Why can’t these missing links be either fully primate or fully human?

One ancestor for humans, and one ancestor for primates, etc, etc. These parallel lines of ancestry produce immense similarity because of convergent evolution. It does not show one common ancestor as the new-darwinists think but two independent common ancestries.

In what way is that scientifically inaccurate to posit that? It isn’t, it is inaccurate because it contradicts your neo-darwinist philosophy.

Rossi vs Murray second debate

Here is the second debate breakdown of Dino Rossi and Patty Murray for a seat in the Senate representing Washington, for October 17, 2010. The debate format was ridiculous and seemed like more news programming at times. It was laughable of the local news, channel 4 KOMO News. It was unprofessional to me and tired. Let the candidates speak I say, don’t waste my time with your slick little presentations of their ads, etc!

Dino Rossi and Patty Murray basically repeat the usual lines from the last debate. Same topics as well for the most part and rather boring. Patty Murray dodged a bit, Rossi got a few digs in during Social Security, but there was a lack of specifics overall. The winner? They both lost, because they both don’t seem to have specifics or want to elaborate on anything. Although on don’t ask don’t tell, Murray said she would vote for the repeal of that EVEN though it would have an adverse effect. Murray, a BIG mistake on that one.

Opening Remarks

Rossi: America in trouble. Course correction needed. Government overreach. Talked about family. Dino Rossi a bit more dynamic.

Murray: Says families struggling, she will be advocate. State is family and is working for investments.

If elected what will you do

Murray: Work to be peoples voice. Talks to community leaders for investments. Talked about Kent Valley damn example. Hanford mentioned again. Jobs are focus, don’t forget veterans. Responsible balancing of federal budget.

Rossi: Fiscal cliff. Hits China, I like! Stop reckless spending. He balanced biggest budget in state history with Democrat majority as example. 17.4% functional unemployment highlighted. Let small business be successful.

Murray rebut: Make sure families have investments by her presence in Senate. Work with small businesses. Tax cuts for middle income families.

Rossi rebut: Re-authorize 2001-2003 tax cuts including those that hurt small businesses. Rossi misspoke big time, Murray knew it.

How to get out of economic mess

Rossi: Looking in eyes of men that are unemployed. Create an atmosphere friendly to certainty for businesses. Re-authorize tax cuts. Give bussinesses oppurtunity to plan. Modest taxation, reliable regulation, let em chase the American dream.

Murray: Families know people unemployed and struggling. Works hard to talk to community leaders. South Park bridge, Murray bringing money to that community. Says Rossi won’t fight for you in that way. Says no credit available.

Rossi rebut: Federal government only creates temporary jobs, takes away from private sector. Stimulus jobs costs 320,000 dollars for each one. Talking about what works for a long-time, unemployment high so stimulus failed.

Murray: Goes to work sites. Rossi will fire private sector employees.

Federal deficit – where to cut and be specific

Murray: Cut 14 billion from President’s budget. Freeze her own pay, no new buildings for secretary of hud. Claims Rossi wants to follow Bush economic agenda. Can make tough cuts, can’t promise tax cuts to wealthy.

Rossi: Earmarks. Murray changed over 18 years. Murray did not cut budget and number 9 in earmarks which now contribute to her. Hitting her with examples left and right. Ban earmarks until budget balanced.

Murray rebut: Didn’t hear balanced budget, when he did say it.

Rossi rebut: Second coming of Ronald Regan, but she isn’t. Already has earmarks for next year. Does one thing in DC does another at home.

Health care

Same responses. Rossi came off a bit better.

Immigration – what to do with children born and raised

Rossi: Secure the border first, cannot entertain anything else.

Murray: Northern border highlighted.

Rossi rebut: Open to ideas for what to do with people born here.

blah, blah, blah

WBC protest Constitutionality

Here is a little debate I had with a member of Liberal Forum. The WBC or Westboro Baptist Church is blatantly conducting hate speech. I found that the debate was interesting and it helps clarify my position a bit more.

NeoConvict: The idea of hate speech is silly and unconstitutional. You have no constitutional right to go through life without being offended by someones speech. The only speech that should be controlled by criminal law is that which endangers others, not something that simply offends them.

Subby: This is special case, in which it deals with funerals of soldiers. I think there needs to be some sort of law and thus regulation for this. Phelps and his people should not be able to protest within 100 yards or something.

NeoConvict: We have no freedom from being offended in the public square. Civil law and criminal law are different in this case. If ones speech is proven to cause fiscal damages then they should be held liable to civil penalties, regardless of where the speech occurred. Speech on public property should not be restricted unless proven to be a danger to life, liberty or other protected individual rights. As vile as I find the Phelps message to be, as long as its said on public property, they have a Constitutional right to say it.

We most certainly were a Nation founded on the protection of speech that makes others uncomfortable, hence the first amendment.

Subby: There are clear and narrow exceptions on free speech. Namely one of them being fighting words, especially when directed to a particular person. It has to do with what the speech communicates and thus what is intended. The hate speech is CLEARLY been directed to specific individuals by Westboro Baptist Church. That is illegal.

NeoConvict: I would love to see the codification of ‘fighting words’. (Cannot believe I am going to defend the Phelps group) The message that the Phelps are bringing is not directed to any particular soldier, any particular individual. Their message is that their God is displeased with Americans embrace of homosexuality and as a result the US has lost favor in the eyes of their God. They are not carrying signs custom made to say “Your dead son was a homosexual and hated by God.” The message is clearly protected by the first amendment as both free speech and religious speech. Nothing they proclaim on their placards or message is an incitement to violence. They are not offering a reward for the killing of individuals, they are not advocating any direct violence against anyone. While disgusting their speech is protected and the case should certainly go in their favor.

The solution is to bury soldiers on private property and arrest these aholes for trespass rather than try to censor their right to free speech in public.

Subby: Yes Phelps has targeted several specific people before.

The solution is to do what at least 17 states have done or are considering. Either ban protests near funeral sites immediately before and after, or regulate these atrocious hate speech protests some other way as I have suggested, or do nothing. Forget the whole private property approach. You are making the victim, the family, have to choose and thus put in the effort of finding a way around hate speech. That is tip-toeing around the problem, namely the hate speech by Phelps, which is clearly seen as a problem within the United States.

Your view is out of the mainstream and seemingly useless.

NeConvict: What this case will do is make the laws in those 17 States unconstitutional, that is likely why they are hearing it. I don’t like Phelps message but I certainly do not want my speech curtailed if the electorate decides it should be censored on a whim of the majority. Free speech is easy if the message is one we all agree on.

Subby: Yes I realize that. But my stance is there is no need for the supreme court anyway, what the states are doing IS Constitutional. We will see I guess.