U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: Do you believe in the theory of evolution?
Yes 108 80.60%
No 26 19.40%
Voters: 134. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-23-2016, 01:40 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
3,854 posts, read 1,649,271 times
Reputation: 3611

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
...

Who thinks supporting all those additional poor people (Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, etc., etc.) that are added to our population every year is sustainable, or even possible at all? What's the proposal for funding food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for all those who will never be self-supporting their entire lives? And how do we get that ever-increasing burden to NOT negatively impact the support of our aging population who've actually PAID into SS and Medicare throughout their entire decades of their working careers? What's your suggestion for solving the problem of the exponentially increasing dependent class population competing directly with the seniors who've prepaid taxes for decades for their retirement benefits in a country in which financial resources AREN'T unlimited?
It's easy enough - we (the states, the taxpayers) provide free appropriate public education, K-12. Assistance with rent, food assistance, public health care (to some defined point - not unlimited) - means-tested. Adults who are able-bodied should be transitioned off assistance - as you note, we don't have infinite means. The same for dependent children - they graduate high school or reach age 18 (is it? - the average age for graduating from HS) - & again, they leave all the public assistance programs. Of course, we need to tell children & adults & families that this will happen, & encourage them to pursue gainful employment. & I thought we had agreed nationally - under the Clinton admin? - that additional dependent children would not generate additional benefits. Did that change? Do we need to bring that back, & make that message stick with families that can't support their children?

After that, they (families or individuals on support) need to rely on someone else for support - church, neighborhood, their family. Somebody else.

& as we've discussed here before, there is no country (that I'm aware of) whose financial resources AREN'T unlimited. & therefore, we have to make wise - or @ least, sustainable - choices about which behaviors we reward, & which behaviors we don't reward.

What's lacking is the political will to actually carry out the plan. I think in theory this scheme is the norm - but in practice, it breaks down, & everyone thinks that one little exception here & there won't break the bank. It's typically referred to as the tragedy of the commons (I think that's its name, in economics speak).

& what does all this have to do with Darwin & evolution?

 
Old 11-23-2016, 02:07 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
3,854 posts, read 1,649,271 times
Reputation: 3611
Default Monkey see, ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian (x)lurker View Post
Sorry no, it doesn't make sense, never believed in it, there's no way a monkay can turn itself into a human, even in a bilion of billion of years.
That's not what the model says. Modern humanity - with a Western Civ. scientific & tech background & tools - might be able to bootstrap itself to some higher evolutionary plateau. But that effort would go against international scientific ethics, as far as I know. & it's not like the Manhattan Project & the Gadget - you can't argue that a sentient being, a primate @ that, has no POV nor feelings, or @ least instincts to be outraged.

Monkeys & humans are already closely related, by the way. It shouldn't be that much of a gap to cross, if there's only a couple of % of total DNA/genetics endowments to cross. That still leaves all the cultural issues to one side, & it's not clear if you could make that kind of DNA jump in one generation & not drive the recipient insane into the bargain.
 
Old 11-23-2016, 02:33 PM
 
9,985 posts, read 6,739,374 times
Reputation: 5612
Future generations will see "evolution" theory for what it is.
Not science, but occult theology. Erasmus Darwin, grandfather
of Chuck, was in league with the Huxleys, at the British Royal
Society, they were permeated by the freemasonic rosicrucians,
luciferian illuminati... basically what they did was rehash some
old thoughts of Anaximander - as old as 600 B.C. was "evolution"
conceived, that's straight out of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. It's just
a control and manipulation ideology, abiogenesis was disproven
by Pasteur. Anthropomorphic soteriology is a Luciferian agenda,
they print the money now and are controlling society now.
See the link I posted just one of many. These same people conceal
the real first-tier science from the public. So they sit at the top
and everyone else underneath, like Huxley's Brave New World describes.
All the ufo's are man-made Tesla technology developed in the 1930s.
 
Old 11-23-2016, 02:36 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,237 posts, read 33,625,909 times
Reputation: 14164
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Evolution seems the logical thing, if they ever find the missing link.
But the more investigative and reading the history and beliefs, fingers are pointing to a species from another planet.

There are places that are ruins now, that we could not build today with the precision in stone cutting.


From what they are scientifically researching, Adam & Eve isn't that far fetched after all.
 
Old 11-23-2016, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 51,262,946 times
Reputation: 24611
More like many many Adams and many many eves creating ever so slightly more suited to the environment Adams and Eves down through time. Down through a lot of time and a lot of generations.
 
Old 11-23-2016, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,835 posts, read 31,678,095 times
Reputation: 12583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian (x)lurker View Post
Sorry no, it doesn't make sense, never believed in it, there's no way a monkay can turn itself into a human, even in a bilion of billion of years.
I guess it's a good thing that science doesn't claim that a monkey turned into a human then.....Humans are not monkeys....We are apes.
 
Old 11-23-2016, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,877 posts, read 2,368,411 times
Reputation: 5332
Why can't both sides of this issue agree with both theories? Creationism strictly means that some higher force created life in various forms. The range was from the single cellular form ( Amoeba) right on up to human form. The people who believe in evolution don't have to abide by one singular theory.

But evolution has been proven. As all animal's have evolved to adapt to environment as it changes. Species have intermingled thus bringing in alter forms by transforming into one combined from 2 others. Advancement of genetics have shown that by sheer data.

SO, Darwin had some thing correct such as natural selection or survival of the fittest but incorrect when he thought that the simple single cellular amoeba eventually became human...That's simply ridiculous..

Personally, I chose to believe in both, because whatever was originally created was meant to evolve, adapt, learn and develop into the higher learning ..which is actually the goal for all living beings!

So since I cannot say yes to both questions in OP's poll..I have to refrain since I have come to the conclusion that all living organisms have a purpose and it's NOT for us to judge that. Life is an energy..and energy just doesn't disappear..it evolves into another realm so to speak.. The more we learn, the more it becomes more clear. But I have to agree..Some basic humans demand proof.. yet why should the CREATOR bow to those basic human demands?? Faith for human's is having a sure belief in something greater than ourselves..It's not our RIGHT to have proof. That in a nutshell is just why we all are here now..TO LEARN> Evolve into a higher understanding.

JMOO
 
Old 11-23-2016, 03:42 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 550,259 times
Reputation: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I guess it's a good thing that science doesn't claim that a monkey turned into a human then.....Humans are not monkeys....We are apes.
Your wife is an ape? Or is Michelle Obama an ape?

Yeah, I know, I've sat through enough physical anthropology classes and biology lectures to know a good many scientists in these fields like to call humans apes.

I don't personally buy into it. But then I like to think for myself. I'm sure that must enrage people that religiously subscribe to the dogma that Caitlyn Jenner was objectively born a female, via a female brain, and that Michelle Obama and President Obama are a mere ape couple.
 
Old 11-23-2016, 03:46 PM
 
Location: Caverns measureless to man...
7,241 posts, read 4,646,692 times
Reputation: 16341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogburn View Post
Your wife is an ape? Or is Michelle Obama an ape?

Yeah, I know, I've sat through enough physical anthropology classes and biology lectures to know a good many scientists in these fields like to call humans apes.

I don't personally buy into it. But then I like to think for myself. I'm sure that must enrage people that religiously subscribe to the dogma that Caitlyn Jenner was objectively born a female, via a female brain, and that Michelle Obama and President Obama are a mere ape couple.
I doubt it would enrage anyone (despite your best efforts), but it certainly is amusing to see one person say so many completely ignorant things in just a single post.
 
Old 11-23-2016, 03:46 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,835 posts, read 31,678,095 times
Reputation: 12583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogburn View Post
Your wife is an ape? Or is Michelle Obama an ape?

Yeah, I know, I've sat through enough physical anthropology classes and biology lectures to know a good many scientists in these fields like to call humans apes.

I don't personally buy into it. But then I like to think for myself. I'm sure that must enrage people that religiously subscribe to the dogma that Caitlyn Jenner was objectively born a female, via a female brain, and that Michelle Obama and President Obama are a mere ape couple.
You are also an ape...

Superfamily Hominoidea. Genus Pongo: orangutans. Bornean orangutan, P. pygmaeus. Sumatran orangutan, P. abelii. Genus Gorilla: gorillas. Western gorilla, G. gorilla. Eastern gorilla, G. beringei. Genus Homo: humans. Human, H. sapiens. Genus Pan: chimpanzees. Common chimpanzee, P. troglodytes. Bonobo, P. paniscus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
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.


Closed Thread

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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