U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 643,066 times
Reputation: 250

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Last I knew, humans are apes. And how does science disprove evolution?
Then you better start learning some other stuff. I've never had found a science professor who believed in evolution. My chemistry professor said that the Big Bang is bunk (along with evolution being bunk/junk science), it's just a cop-out idea "something comes from nothing" used by scientists who are unable to find answers and who don't want to admit they have no answers. People used to think that piles of garbage resulted in the 'spontaneous generation' of rats, yet scientists today laugh at that idea, that something comes from nothing. How then did the Universe, a very large something, come from nothing?

If you want to see how the Universe formed and how man came to be, I suggest you turn to Genesis chapter one.

There's a reason evolution is called a theory, because it remains unproven and cannot be proven. If it was real science we should be seeing apes in the intermediate stages of evolution between apes and humans, we should be seeing apes that are actively evolving into humans, we should be seeing all sorts of intermediate species and such. The apes that began evolving shortly after the apes that resulted in our being here, should be evolving before our very eyes, or at least over a period of time that could be noted in two to four thousand years of recorded human history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:39 PM
 
3,911 posts, read 4,742,423 times
Reputation: 1822
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
However, science readily disproves a lot of things that scientists like to claim as truths... such as the Big Bang and evolution. Do you think humans evolved from apes? I sure hope not. That's anti-scientific.
Now I've heard it all on this thread. Big shocker you don't support decriminalization. Ignorance is bliss. Your "beliefs" are painting a pretty funny picture.
Also not surprised about your profession.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:41 PM
 
3,911 posts, read 4,742,423 times
Reputation: 1822
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
There's a reason evolution is called a theory, because it remains unproven and cannot be proven.
It is not a fact until we know everything about it. That is why it is called a theory, because we are learning more and more about it. Please go back to bible school. In what freaking universe is evolution not proven to happen?? You can't be this ignorant. Remind me why we don't look like cave people anymore?


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...ermediates_ex3
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Florida
6,262 posts, read 16,992,517 times
Reputation: 4690
Default gee

the original question was:Is there a single reason pot should not be legalized?

simple answer: NO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 643,066 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevergoingback View Post
Remind me why don't look like cave people anymore?

Because we wear nice clothing, we shave, keep our hair neat and trimmed, and we live in houses as opposed to caves.

This idea that cave-men were a separate species is simply junk science. There is no merit to that view.

Do you have any substantive proof that cave-men were physically different from modern men aside from the dirty and hard look that comes from living in a cave?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:55 PM
 
3,911 posts, read 4,742,423 times
Reputation: 1822
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Because we wear nice clothing, we shave, keep our hair neat and trimmed, and we live in houses as opposed to caves.

This idea that cave-men were a separate species is simply junk science. There is no merit to that view.

Do you have any substantive proof that cave-men were physically different from modern men aside from the dirty and hard look that comes from living in a cave?

Look at the link I provided. Yeah those funny looking skulls with sloped foreheads. Don't look like my skull or an apes skull. Transitional species do exist. There are now frogs that have no lungs or gills, they absorb oxygen through their skin.

Back on topic. Ignorance from the "keep it a crime" crowd is showing from all aspects. If this ignorance wasn't so true, it would be funny, sadly these people are actually being serious. Who are these people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 04:02 PM
 
239 posts, read 309,633 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Then you better start learning some other stuff. I've never had found a science professor who believed in evolution. My chemistry professor said that the Big Bang is bunk (along with evolution being bunk/junk science), it's just a cop-out idea "something comes from nothing" used by scientists who are unable to find answers and who don't want to admit they have no answers. People used to think that piles of garbage resulted in the 'spontaneous generation' of rats, yet scientists today laugh at that idea, that something comes from nothing. How then did the Universe, a very large something, come from nothing?

If you want to see how the Universe formed and how man came to be, I suggest you turn to Genesis chapter one.

There's a reason evolution is called a theory, because it remains unproven and cannot be proven. If it was real science we should be seeing apes in the intermediate stages of evolution between apes and humans, we should be seeing apes that are actively evolving into humans, we should be seeing all sorts of intermediate species and such. The apes that began evolving shortly after the apes that resulted in our being here, should be evolving before our very eyes, or at least over a period of time that could be noted in two to four thousand years of recorded human history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 04:19 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,244,460 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Then you better start learning some other stuff.
Humans are members of the ape family, Hominoidea. That is our classification. We are primates. I'm sure I'll learn other stuff as the years go by, but it's unlikely that I'll come across variations in primate taxonomy.

Quote:
I've never had found a science professor who believed in evolution.
The number of scientists that reject evolution as a scientific theory is <0.15%. I'm not inclined to believe that even the one or two science profs you've know in your life reject evolution. Though, maybe you attended a christian college where such positions would be more prevalent.

Quote:
My chemistry professor said that the Big Bang is bunk (along with evolution being bunk/junk science), it's just a cop-out idea "something comes from nothing" used by scientists who are unable to find answers and who don't want to admit they have no answers.
Of course the big bang theory, (and lets insert abiogenesis in general) has exactly what to do with evolution?

Quote:
People used to think that piles of garbage resulted in the 'spontaneous generation' of rats, yet scientists today laugh at that idea, that something comes from nothing.
Indeed and this happened in the way of evidence. The evidence for biological evolution is overwhelming.

Quote:
If you want to see how the Universe formed and how man came to be, I suggest you turn to Genesis chapter one.
I suggest you learn the difference between the theory of evolution and the big bang.

Quote:
There's a reason evolution is called a theory, because it remains unproven and cannot be proven.
Here's a simple break down that may be of help to you...

"Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.


Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics; Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true."

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method
Quote:
If it was real science we should be seeing apes in the intermediate stages of evolution between apes and humans, we should be seeing apes that are actively evolving into humans, we should be seeing all sorts of intermediate species and such.
I think chromosome 2 fusion is a stiking argument. Ken Miller provides an excellent lecture in this vid, which would probably be more interesting for you than reading an article.

YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution

Here's a wiki article if you don't feel like watching the vid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

Here's a Q&A on transitions in the fossil record.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Finally, this link is great as it relates to my area of science.
Relevance of evolution: medicine

Quote:
The apes that began evolving shortly after the apes that resulted in our being here, should be evolving before our very eyes, or at least over a period of time that could be noted in two to four thousand years of recorded human history.
Lets be clear here. At the heart of evolution is mutation. You, me, everyone else on this planet are the result of mutations. And we have indeed seen mutations during human history. Off the top of my head, the mutation resulting in sickle cell anemia is a pretty good example.
Evolution: Library: A Mutation Story

Last edited by Braunwyn; 02-21-2009 at 04:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 953,399 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
I'm not saying it's not a ticketable offense. There are lots of ticketable offenses. The thing is that it'd have to be PROVEN. That's a tough one to prove. And as for the smiley... well... I'd use it if it didn't look so "happy". I rarely roll my eyes when I'm happy.
It can be proven; there are plenty of signs that show when a person is *extremely* upset.

The smile? It adds to the sarcasm. I like it to be quite honest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
If one would do it, that's too many.
That can be the basis for outlawing many things my friend. Harm reduction is the key; your always going to have a negative statistic for everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
If this were true, there wouldn't be so many beggars. You know not all of them REALLY want that money for food.
Many beggars aren't really beggars (in the true sense of the word) they make a buck to buy cigarettes or beer and buy food when they really need it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
Apparently you don't watch COPS. I recently saw one where guys broke into a convenience store to steal cartons of cigarettes... and on the same episode it showed a guy running off with a stolen case of beer from a liquor store.
I'm talking about mass robberies all over the country where people die (both customers and employees) and hundreds if not thousands of stuff is stolen or they at least jack all of the cases of beers and carton's of cigarettes. To my knowledge, that has not happened on a large scale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
Substances alter the brain's ability to discern a stupid thing from an intelligent thing. People choose to use drugs but then after using enough of them, their decision-making abilities are compromised by the drugs.
And they must deal with those consequences because they made the choice to indulge in the mind altering substance. Since they made the choice to do that, they must accept the consequences of the choices they make while high on the substance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
That comes down from God Himself. Why would God have given us laws to live by if we were intelligent enough to self-govern without them?
Again, not all people believe in God. And you definitely cannot legislate morality and religion (or 'God'). It goes against the whole, religious freedom clause in the Constitution. It is fine by me if you believe in the bible and live your life according to it, but once you start trying to push God and push religion into the government, that's when I (and many others religious or not) start to have a problem with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
I'm not for a complete "nanny state", but there are certain things that we have to be protected from and people's stupidity and ignorance often produces those things.
Making drugs illegal offers no protection. You have yet to give me the protection it offers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
We have to be protected from people who aren't intelligent enough to know when they're about to get high and stop using their "recreational drugs" beyond the point of recreationality.
Again, there is no way to stop stupid people from being stupid, short of shooting and killing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
Some people don't believe that the Holocaust ever happened, either. Does that mean it didn't?
The Holocaust is proven fact; you can go and dig up bodies right now and talk to the survivors of it. There are pictures, videos, and stories that tell of it; holocaust deniers are basically the leftovers of the Nazi regime that still believe in what Hitler talked about.

The bible on the other hand is different. It is FAITH-based (as in not based in science and facts). It is a belief system and it's simply having the faith to believe in it or not. There isn't an empirical amount of physical evidence that says the bible is real and the events in it are also. On the other hand, there is with the Holocaust; tis why the deniers are known as crazies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
"Lost people" means exactly that... people who aren't on the right path and don't know how to get there.

If they remain on the wrong path up to the time they die, yes, they will burn in hell. I didn't make that up... it's in the Bible and I'm merely repeating what I read. I know some people don't believe in the Bible. Actually, it's around 80% of the world's population. (However, Christianity is the single biggest religion in the world. Apparently we know SOMETHING.)
Again, subjective and morally/religiously opinionated. The 'right path' is different for everyone and who are you to tell someone else what the 'right path' in their life is? To you everyone who may not believe in the bible and it's teachings may be on the 'wrong path' (as in, on a higgghhhhway to hell), but realize that for many people the teaching of the bible do not shape what their definition of 'the right path' is. For most, it's being successful and being happy with your life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
Produce proof of this, my friend.
Alcohol Prohibtion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
Then the cops should wear bulletproof vests and drive bulletproof cars. If Neanderthals who deal drugs can be this dangerous, surely technology can help out our police officers.
And citizens should wear bulletproof vests and drive bulletproof cars also? Cuz you know, they are the ones that die the most from gang and drug related crimes. And I was just thinking the other day how I needed an uzi, a tech, a bulletproof jacket and car too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
This is probably true but despite the duality of its purpose, the illegality of drugs does protect us from ourselves to a point. I know that politicians are almost all in the gig for the money. Why not, after all? Why be a politician if you wouldn't be paid for it? Why not sweep floors and at least make minimum wage for your time?
How does prohibition protect us from ourselves? Sorry I missed that part.

And you're actually okay with politicians putting money over the people that got them there? Heh, my government teacher told us that when government and politicians screw others it's okay, but when it's them or their group, then suddenly it's 'politics.' Unbelievable.

Politicians and government are there for the purpose of the people; when they start screwing the people they are supposed to be there for (as in the common man, not their constituents) then it is time for a revolution.

At least be honest, the only reason your okay with them making money off of all this (which is taking money out of your pocket and mine) is because you want it that way. If there was a ban on say, religion, Christianity to be specific, you'd be in arms about how it's a violation of your rights and such and such and so on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
Apparently then 52% of Americans are fools... as was evidenced by a certain "momentous" event back in the beginning of November.
That's your opinion. I didn't like Obama or McCain (Ron Paul was my first choice), but to many, they did not want a Bush III; and that's what McCain was. Both of their policies sucked; it was a lesser of the two evils situation. And it was momentous, unless you don't consider a Black man getting elected momentous then meh, it means nothing to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
I sure am glad that there are so many people on this forum who know me better than I know myself. If I stay here long enough, I may achieve Nirvana.
I don't know you, I just know the meaning of the word. And trust me, the original meaning of the word conservative (in politics) does not mean neocons and nanny states. A conservative is basically a more conservative form of a Libertarian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
Good, at least we agree on something. You should apply this to everything you say, however.
You can stop a war (or avoid it), but you cannot stop drug addiction and drug addicts; they decide for themselves whether they want to continue. Wars? Politicians and government officials decide; soldier's follow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
What if the alcohol made them unaware of what they were doing? I've never been unaware of what I was doing at any point in my life but I have known people who were.
It's still their stupidity for not having a friend or a DD, for not setting down their keys or handing them to someone before they start drinking. You can always avoid morbid situations if you think before hand. I'd still be able to realize that it's the person stupidity that made them do it. Once you take a shot of alcohol your making the choice to deal with the consequences of all subsequent actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
It was the stupidity of the person to USE it. Once stoned, as I said before, a person's decision-making ability is compromised.
And as I've said, you make the choice to deal with subsequent consequences should they arise. It's stupid to smoke pot and then try to drive. It's equally stupid to punish everybody for the stupidity of a few.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
If that weren't the case, it'd be a lot harder to advocate for marijuana's continued illegality.
Meh, just like gay marriage, it'll be legal sooner or later. The case where the DEA raided the state of California's marijuana facilities is in the Supreme Court of California and I think it's headed on it's way to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are more Americans now that want it legalized in some form (whether recreational or medicinal) and it's just a matter of time before they legalize the plant (as in cannabis). In recent times it's getting alot harder to advocate for keeping it illegal because of the drain it's putting on the financial system and because of rising crime and incarceration rates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy View Post
In the end, the only reason why alcohol isn't illegalized is because too many people have started enjoying it and the profits that can be realized from it. That is apparently more important than the tens of thousands of people who are killed every year in drunk-driving accidents.
Actually, it's because we already tried alcohol prohibition once and that didn't seem to work out too well.

And the assumption that people will suddenly stop drinking (and driving drunk) if it was illegal belongs somewhere in lala land because here in reality we know that it doesn't matter if it is legal or not, some will still drink and drive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2009, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 643,066 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Humans are members of the ape family, Hominoidea. That is our classification. We are primates. I'm sure I'll learn other stuff as the years go by, but it's unlikely that I'll come across variations in primate taxonomy.


The number of scientists that reject evolution as a scientific theory is <0.15%. I'm not inclined to believe that even the one or two science profs you've know in your life reject evolution. Though, maybe you attended a christian college where such positions would be more prevalent.

My chemistry professor spent most of one class talking about how the Big Bang is a hoax and how God made the Universe. He explained that most scientists have very few answers and they just want to use some terms such as "Big Bang" as a cop-out to avoid having to answer tough questions about their ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top