How liberals are in denial about evolution and science just as much as conservatives

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2015 12:36 PM GMT


    Interesting watch.
    Liberals defend the theory of evolution when it comes to animals and extinct species but shy away from it when it comes to humans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2015 3:20 PM GMT


    You thought only Conservatives were religious?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2015 3:21 PM GMT
    Always got to find an equivalency, even when there isn't one.
    In the pundit world, they call that "High-Broderism".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2015 3:45 PM GMT
    This is the best thread I have seen on here in a long time. This guy has it right. And this is why I have a certain person on here who claims I cannot be a Progressive because I have Conservative views. But in actuality it's just that I learned a long time ago to disconnect my emotional needs from looking at a situation clearly. I know this guy says it's impossible but I think I've come as close as anyone to achieving that state. Or I could just be in denial.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2015 3:52 PM GMT
    Hey Aaron: Got to be careful with drawing inferences from a sample of few. Here is the current statistics on evolution beliefs among different groups:

    04blow-ch-blog427.gif

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/blow-indoctrinating-religious-warriors.html
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 06, 2015 3:54 PM GMT
    Yup!

    I suppose we've all seen it and never really taken time to analyze it.

    I know I have. The mention of any aspect of evolution or even genetics that differentiates people by race automatically sends them into the same temper tantrums christians at any mention of the impossibility that the human race could have been created from mud and spit as described in Genesis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2015 4:07 PM GMT
    Hey Bob, The human race has the same genome. In fact, we share about 98% of the genetic materials as a monkey. If you want to get down to it, black people are the most human of all because they are substantially Homo sapiens whereas you and I have a mixture of Neanderthal in us.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 06, 2015 6:16 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidHey Bob, The human race has the same genome. In fact, we share about 98% of the genetic materials as a monkey. If you want to get down to it, black people are the most human of all because they are substantially Homo sapiens whereas you and I have a mixture of Neanderthal in us.


    When all else fails resort to oversimplify the facts, twist them and arrange them out of context.

    Monkeys? 98% of the genetic material as chimpanzees and benobos who are apes, not monkeys.

    "black people are most human?" So you're trying to say neanderthals were something other than human? Neanderthal genes make up 1% -3% of non African genomes. Asians have more than causcasians. Are you saying Asians are less human than either caucasians or blacks because they have the most neanderthal genes?

    With that pointed out it's time to get busy digging your foot out of your own ass, isn't it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2015 8:34 PM GMT
    The idea that genes affect our mental make up is a real minefield. For one thing, it opens the door to eugenics (think WWII and what the Germans were doing).

    The important question to me is not whether or not genes affect our mental make up, which I think they do, but how we handle that information when the evidence becomes incontrovertible (e.g., mapping the human genome).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2015 9:19 PM GMT
    bobbobbob saidWith that pointed out it's time to get busy digging your foot out of your own ass, isn't it?

    Still can't have a discussion on here without insulting someone. And you're the poor persecuted put-upon one.
    Wow.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Apr 06, 2015 10:03 PM GMT
    It's Chimpanzee alleles floating around in 'em.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 06, 2015 10:12 PM GMT
    meh, humans are just the culmination (so far) of every bad thing evolution had to offer icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2015 10:16 PM GMT
    Sharkspeare said
    Still can't have a discussion on here without insulting someone. And you're the poor persecuted put-upon one.
    Wow.


    You must understand, he only gets nasty with those who have been nasty to him. Except that, apparently, he reserves the right to get nasty with liberals, even those liberals who have never been nasty to him. But he never gets nasty with conservatives, regardless of how nasty they may have been to anyone. All perfectly logical. Do you see?
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 06, 2015 11:07 PM GMT
    Sharkspeare said
    bobbobbob saidWith that pointed out it's time to get busy digging your foot out of your own ass, isn't it?

    Still can't have a discussion on here without insulting someone. And you're the poor persecuted put-upon one.
    Wow.


    That doesn't qualify as an insult, so give it a rest. There's no attack in it, no false accusation, no assault on anyone's character...

    So with that clarified, it appears you too need to back up and get busy pulling your foot out of your own ass, don't ya?
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 06, 2015 11:14 PM GMT
    I never understood why people think evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. Unless you require a(n ignorant) literal interpretation of the Bible, then you can simply think God set the Big Bang in motion, knowing evolution would eventually create 'humans' as we think of 'humans' today, and he chose to use more simplistic "I took his rib to make a female" imagery because he was talking to people in ALL ages, not just the most advanced the world has seen (yet).

    The Pope thinks the two reconcile nicely, as do I.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 06, 2015 11:37 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI never understood why people think evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. Unless you require a(n ignorant) literal interpretation of the Bible, then you can simply think God set the Big Bang in motion, knowing evolution would eventually create 'humans' as we think of 'humans' today, and he chose to use more simplistic "I took his rib to make a female" imagery because he was talking to people in ALL ages, not just the most advanced the world has seen (yet).

    The Pope thinks the two reconcile nicely, as do I.



    The problem is the number of demoninations (sic) that are totally invested in literal interpretations of Genesis even though Genesis contradicts itself no less than nine times on very crucial points. Your point of view is reasonable. For them there is no is no room to be reasonable along side their intransigent dogma. If you speak to many of them they will tell you they'll prefer dying to changing their beliefs.

    Since it's illegal to help them with that, all we can do is hope they get the issue resolved soon.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 06, 2015 11:45 PM GMT
    @Bob3

    "demoninations (sic)" .......nice! icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 07, 2015 12:40 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said@Bob3

    "demoninations (sic)" .......nice! icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif


    That's just one of many words I've coined to fit them. I just don't like squandering them here. Believe it or not all of them are just as obvious as "demoninations." They can easily be just a slip of the fingers on the keyboards rather than an intentional typo.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 07, 2015 1:07 AM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    Svnw688 said@Bob3

    "demoninations (sic)" .......nice! icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif


    That's just one of many words I've coined to fit them. I just don't like squandering them here. Believe it or not all of them are just as obvious as "demoninations." They can easily be just a slip of the fingers on the keyboards rather than an intentional typo.


    I believe you. Though we've had STRONG differences of opinion (understatement of the month?), and I do not subscribe to your worldview (and I assume the vice-versa is true), I have never doubted your intelligence or ability to craft a clever sentence.

    ....admittedly, I habitually mock your font/color choices, but that's just good fun.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Apr 07, 2015 1:18 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI never understood why people think evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. Unless you require a(n ignorant) literal interpretation of the Bible, then you can simply think God set the Big Bang in motion, knowing evolution would eventually create 'humans' as we think of 'humans' today, and he chose to use more simplistic "I took his rib to make a female" imagery because he was talking to people in ALL ages, not just the most advanced the world has seen (yet).

    The Pope thinks the two reconcile nicely, as do I.


    Well, "yes", but the pope is just being his usual "jesuitical" dick self, there. His take is the saw we were all taught by Jesuits in high school: "Something must EXIST before it can EVOLVE; ERGO, that something must have been CREATED by....."

    That something must exist before it can evolve seems so obvious as to need no rebuttal; it's the "therefore" with which I'd argue.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 07, 2015 1:22 AM GMT
    The font and color changes fall under 3 categories.

    1. to delineate my response from others on the same long quotes

    2. to make it easier for readers to follow my words (maybe in blue) against the words of others in black.

    3. Emphasis, usually to point out the 4000 pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the issue that no one is acknowledging.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14348

    Apr 07, 2015 1:29 AM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    woodsmen saidHey Bob, The human race has the same genome. In fact, we share about 98% of the genetic materials as a monkey. If you want to get down to it, black people are the most human of all because they are substantially Homo sapiens whereas you and I have a mixture of Neanderthal in us.


    When all else fails resort to oversimplify the facts, twist them and arrange them out of context.

    Monkeys? 98% of the genetic material as chimpanzees and benobos who are apes, not monkeys.

    "black people are most human?" So you're trying to say neanderthals were something other than human? Neanderthal genes make up 1% -3% of non African genomes. Asians have more than causcasians. Are you saying Asians are less human than either caucasians or blacks because they have the most neanderthal genes?

    With that pointed out it's time to get busy digging your foot out of your own ass, isn't it?
    You mean it's time for him to get his foot out of his mouth. Unless he loves the taste of toenails.icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2015 1:54 AM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    When all else fails resort to oversimplify the facts, twist them and arrange them out of context.

    Monkeys? 98% of the genetic material as chimpanzees and benobos who are apes, not monkeys.

    "black people are most human?" So you're trying to say neanderthals were something other than human? Neanderthal genes make up 1% -3% of non African genomes. Asians have more than causcasians. Are you saying Asians are less human than either caucasians or blacks because they have the most neanderthal genes?

    With that pointed out it's time to get busy digging your foot out of your own ass, isn't it?


    I am using the word monkeys in the colloquial sense and linguistically "ape" and "monkey" are used interchangeably. If you want to use the scientific term, the family name of Hominoidea which is inclusive of human and chimpanzees.

    Neanderthal are not human in the sense that humans are Homo sapien sapien, who diverted on the genetic tree from Neanderthal about 500,000 years ago. You would't consider yourself a monkey, right?

    NYT reported: Today, people who are not of African descent have stretches of genetic material almost identical to Neanderthal DNA, comprising about 2 percent of their entire genomes. These DNA fragments are the evidence that Neanderthals interbred with the early migrants out of Africa, likely in western Asia. See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/science/a-new-theory-on-how-neanderthal-dna-spread-in-asia.html

    Scientists have speculated on this and there are two theories, one that there was interbreeding with Neanderthal and the other is that the Neanderthals DNA came from ancient lineage back to where once the Homo family was unified.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 07, 2015 2:04 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    Svnw688 saidI never understood why people think evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. Unless you require a(n ignorant) literal interpretation of the Bible, then you can simply think God set the Big Bang in motion, knowing evolution would eventually create 'humans' as we think of 'humans' today, and he chose to use more simplistic "I took his rib to make a female" imagery because he was talking to people in ALL ages, not just the most advanced the world has seen (yet).

    The Pope thinks the two reconcile nicely, as do I.


    Well, "yes", but the pope is just being his usual "jesuitical" dick self, there. His take is the saw we were all taught by Jesuits in high school: "Something must EXIST before it can EVOLVE; ERGO, that something must have been CREATED by....."

    That something must exist before it can evolve seems so obvious as to need no rebuttal; it's the "therefore" with which I'd argue.


    I hear you, but I'm actually a fan of the "causa sui" argument. I'm not married to it, and I'll admit it's weakness logically, but I find it persuasive to a certain extent.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 07, 2015 2:18 AM GMT
    woodsmen said
    bobbobbob said
    When all else fails resort to oversimplify the facts, twist them and arrange them out of context.

    Monkeys? 98% of the genetic material as chimpanzees and benobos who are apes, not monkeys.

    "black people are most human?" So you're trying to say neanderthals were something other than human? Neanderthal genes make up 1% -3% of non African genomes. Asians have more than causcasians. Are you saying Asians are less human than either caucasians or blacks because they have the most neanderthal genes?

    With that pointed out it's time to get busy digging your foot out of your own ass, isn't it?


    I am using the word monkeys in the colloquial sense and linguistically "ape" and "monkey" are used interchangeably. If you want to use the scientific term, the family name of Hominoidea which is inclusive of human and chimpanzees.

    Neanderthal are not human in the sense that humans are Homo sapien sapien, who diverted on the genetic tree from Neanderthal about 500,000 years ago. You would't consider yourself a monkey, right?

    NYT reported: Today, people who are not of African descent have stretches of genetic material almost identical to Neanderthal DNA, comprising about 2 percent of their entire genomes. These DNA fragments are the evidence that Neanderthals interbred with the early migrants out of Africa, likely in western Asia. See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/science/a-new-theory-on-how-neanderthal-dna-spread-in-asia.html

    Scientists have speculated on this and there are two theories, one that there was interbreeding with Neanderthal and the other is that the Neanderthals DNA came from ancient lineage back to where once the Homo family was unified.


    Did you throw out all that verbiage as an evasion to addressing the ridiculous and indefensible statement you made about blacks being the most human of the races?