Is there such a thing as Gender? (1 Viewer)

[boredofstudiesuser1]

No need. I'm done thanks. I can't handle your stupidity any longer.

That's the end of my responses.

Alrighty then...

 

[RenegadeMx]

I'm in year 10...

mfw

 

[Queenroot]

lmao

 

[dan964]

Dan buddy, you're going backwards. I feel like I've already addressed this. In fact the post you replied to makes it very clear.

As does my original. Like I said, just because you are right (scientifically/morally), and they are wrong, does not entitle you to insult them, more specifically their family. I was using a general observation and applying to a specific situation. The reason is you originally were not engaging with their opinion and actually addressing what is wrong with their opinion (i.e. the content itself)

...Not everyone in this world is entitled to their own precious opinion. And their opinion doesn't have the right to NOT be criticised.

FYI, I agree also with Sien's reply here: http://community.boredofstudies.org...67/there-such-thing-gender-4.html#post7199668

Note: I am commenting on how you are responding, FYI; not the content of your argument, in generality.

(1) Firstly, criticize their opinion, not the person themselves or their family upbringing. If you cannot engage with their argument and opinion then still don't criticize the person either.

(2) I think what would kill science, if we said, well you are arrogant to question, to enquire or to discover; or to actually discuss/debate the issue at hand. It happens in a lot of other issues.

If we want to trust the multitude scientists who make big claims and inferences from scientific, geological data leading to evolution, then we need to weigh the claims made, this is not arrogant or stupid. After all, we demand the same for those of other ideologies, why should science be any different?

(3) I understand enough about evolution, but I honestly would prefer more information before I could make any conclusions. I honestly cannot claim to know all, but that doesn't impact my position, not does it invalidate anything I am saying. The internet is full of bias, so actually seeing a confrontation of different viewpoints I don't mind.
Is that clear? or not?

(4) Pauline Hansen has an opinion, and she is entitled to it (she owns her own opinion). And you are entitled to criticize it, or ignore it and move on. She is only Pauline Hansen.

 

[Red_of_Head]

Also, if something like evolution is true, and we don't have souls or there is no after-life, I don't see how knowing that we are evolving is important to us, we're going to turn into a pile of dirt anyway.

What are you saying here? That nothing should be important to atheists because they believe in the finality of death?

Secondly, I don't understand what 'animals appearing seemingly out of nowhere in the timeline' even means. How do we know they didn't exist before then and that we just don't have fossils further back than the times we believe they existed?

We know this because of fossil records. We find creatures in different rock layers. Hence we can say the Stegosaurus and the Tyrannosaurus Rex lived in different time periods. You might want to have a look at something called "Palaeontology" (the study of fossils).

If you are interested in seeing a creationist argue evolution (this guy is one of the best I've seen), then please check out:

Kent Hovind - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

If you link to a 2.5 hour video, it's usually best to refer to specific arguments/times so people can check and retort. It would be similar to Flop telling you to refute "On the Origin of Species " (Darwin) or "Evolutionary Biology" (Douglas Futuyma) without giving any reference to the contents/arguments made.

Also, it might help your argument if you link to an actual scientist rather than Kent Hovind, for the same reasons a history student would reference Kershaw rather than Dan Carlin.

I don't think there's enough evidence to prove this and I don't think carbon dating the way they believe it does

Why exactly don't you believe in carbon dating?

Appeal to majority, just because heaps of people believe something doesn't make it true. You use this quite a lot for some reason.

Careful you don't fall into an argument from fallacy.

I'm saying is that there is not enough evidence for it to be deemed as science

It most definitely is science, you might want to check your definitions.

I think what would kill science, if we said, well you are arrogant to question, to enquire or to discover; or to actually discuss/debate the issue at hand. It happens in a lot of other issues.

If we want to trust the multitude scientists who make big claims and inferences from scientific, geological data leading to evolution, then we need to weigh the claims made, this is not arrogant or stupid. After all, we demand the same for those of other ideologies, why should science be any different?

There's a difference between questioning models with new ideas/data and refusing to accept something with decades worth of evidence and entire branches of science dedicated to it. It's akin to believing that vaccines don't work, or that geocentricism is correct. Doing that hinders progress and spreads misinformation. If bored had proposed a new theory or provided new evidence, it would be a different matter altogether.

 

[dan964]

There's a difference between questioning models with new ideas/data and refusing to accept something with decades worth of evidence and entire branches of science dedicated to it. It's akin to believing that vaccines don't work, or that geocentricism is correct. Doing that hinders progress and spreads misinformation. If bored had proposed a new theory or provided new evidence, it would be a different matter altogether.

Questioning inferences made from scientific data are perfectly fine, as that is primarily what macroevolution is. for instance does the current model of macro-evolution; adequately explain things like the Cambrian explosion (or Cambrian radiation)?

Or even something as simple as the appendix? Which apparently actually serves a useful function?
Although I will comment, comparison between different forms may not be the best means to prove evolution, since it makes an assumption that all parts of the body had some functional use; in the past.

Here is one list of issues taken with evolution (warning bias):
http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

and here is a refutation (?)
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/scientific-weaknesses-of-evolution-2012-9

 

[Flop21]

Note: I am commenting on how you are responding, FYI; not the content of your argument, in generality.

(1) Firstly, criticize their opinion, not the person themselves or their family upbringing. If you cannot engage with their argument and opinion then still don't criticize the person either.

You sure bet I can criticise the person themselves and their parents. Otherwise are we just going to let parents screw up their children as much as they want? Nah. Society will get nowhere. So screw you, screw her and her scum parents. You don't get to throw around dangerous ideas and get away with it.

I hope you both catch the measles, you ignorant anti-vaccination morons.

And if you have anything to say to this, just keep reading this post over and over. I'm sure you can imagine my response.

 

[RenegadeMx]

You sure bet I can criticise the person themselves and their parents. Otherwise are we just going to let parents screw up their children as much as they want? Nah. Society will get nowhere. So screw you, screw her and her scum parents. You don't get to throw around dangerous ideas and get away with it.

I hope you both catch the measles, you ignorant anti-vaccination morons.

And if you have anything to say to this, just keep reading this post over and over. I'm sure you can imagine my response.

that time of month again?

 

[Red_of_Head]

Questioning inferences made from scientific data are perfectly fine, as that is primarily what macroevolution is.

I'll concede that, but that was more or less in line with my point. If you have evidence that raises questions or theories that you think make more sense, then please, discuss. But denying the fossil record or the validity of carbon dating with conjecture is not the same.

for instance does the current model of macro-evolution; adequately explain things like the Cambrian explosion (or Cambrian radiation)?

The Cambrian explosion sure does raise questions, but it doesn't necessarily contradict evolution. Their are quite a few proposals for how the Cambrian explosion fits into our understanding of evolution (give this a read: http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/cambrian-explosion). But again, how this fits into our understanding of evolution is something I think we should be able to discuss.

Or even something as simple as the appendix? Which apparently actually serves a useful function?
Although I will comment, comparison between different forms may not be the best means to prove evolution, since it makes an assumption that all parts of the body had some functional use; in the past.

Evolution is often referred to as "survival of the fittest". But that isn't quite true. It's "survival of the fit enough". Appendixes could remain in our bodies because appendixes had very little impact on our ability to reproduce.

 

[dan964]

I'll concede that, but that was more or less in line with my point. If you have evidence that raises questions or theories that you think make more sense, then please, discuss. But denying the fossil record or the validity of carbon dating with conjecture is not the same.

Cool, we have some agreement then. I would also agree in generality. Although the question of accuracy (rather than validity) is the real scientific question.

The Cambrian explosion sure does raise questions, but it doesn't necessarily contradict evolution. Their are quite a few proposals for how the Cambrian explosion fits into our understanding of evolution (give this a read: http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/cambrian-explosion). But again, how this fits into our understanding of evolution is something I think we should be able to discuss.

I had a read of that article earlier when I made my original reply, probably need to re-read. I find it interesting, if evolution had some mechanism whereby information could be created and destroyed (that is mass-formation, akin to the origins of life; and mass (or catalystic) extinction). I would also assert/ask if such mechanism exists; is it the dominant mechanism? Nevertheless such mechanism would be a possible explanation to gaps in the fossil record without their being I guess disproving all of evolutionary theory as it stands.

Evolution is often referred to as "survival of the fittest". But that isn't quite true. It's "survival of the fit enough". Appendixes could remain in our bodies because appendixes had very little impact on our ability to reproduce.

That makes sense, so it is more of a case of sufficient enough to survive? I have the impression, that sometimes the assumption that function follows form (that is every part of the body needs to have some use).

Appendixes recently were discovered to have a use, of course this doesn't disprove evolution but simply challenges what is often appealed to as evidence for evolution. The existence of supposedly "defunct" organs/structures (or forms) does not imply evolution (but neither disproves either); unless you apply the critical assumption, (often derived from natural selection), that every form has a useful function/purpose. Even think about that last bit, makes me wonder about why one would assume that? (Such an argument doesn't help evolutionary theory I don't think)

----

I hope you both catch the measles, you ignorant anti-vaccination morons.

Now thats a quote for the quotebook

Hardly angry at that comment, and the claim of ignorance/moronic is unjustified. May I also add I am not anti-vaccination (not that it is relevant to this thread anyways)... so moving on...

-----

Not to mention I think dan964 are honestly ceebs to take this discussion further themselves, just because there seems to be a fundamental disagreement here as to what evolution is, since it's an accordion word. The entire debate becomes pointless if a definition isn't clear and distinctions aren't made, otherwise there'll be strawman thrown around.

I agree; often misunderstanding can lead to firm replies.

There are 3 things that I think would need to be addressed:

1. Defining evolution properly; or at the very least macro-evolution since that tends to be most disputed.
2. Recognising that theories often can be redefined (of course with data is better), rather than branding/labelling.
3. Recognising that certain comments on the fossil records and other evolution evidences, are (usually logical and reasonable) inferences, especially those made in the absence of adequate data. As scientists continue to discover new fossils, it will help to refine the theory where necessary

I created a thread for evolution, since this thread has solidly derailed At least so far this thread is only 5 pages long.

 

[dan964]

For the sake of consistency, I thought to address some of boredofstudiesuser1 stuff.

I think this is the first thing we agree on. I don't think all opinions are equal and I think there are right/wrong answers for everything.

I am the impression that certain opinions, such as those of experts carry more weight and therefore should be more trustworthy, except politicians.

Appeal to majority, just because heaps of people believe something doesn't make it true. You use this quite a lot for some reason.

An appeal to experts, does not equal appeal to majority. For instance I had watched a lot of debates between Islam and Christians on various beliefs within the two religions, and they know how to quote relevant scholars to back up their position. In this topic of evolution, there is a lot of agreement, in generality (although not well-defined but that is another side-issue not worth looking into with the time) amongst experts in their fields, but like any science there needs to be room for refinement and improvement, and it happens. But it is hardly unreasonable to rely on experts who know their stuff; but yes, not assuming that it is perfect.

A problem in our discussion is that I think you think (lol) that I'm arguing evolution isn't true, whereas what I'm saying is that there is not enough evidence for it to be deemed as science.

What measure do you use? It is still science. The real question is the mechanism behind macro-evolution adequate in its explanation of the scientific data, from a probability and plausibility, as in its current theory. I suggest it isn't, but I don't think that means rewriting all of the theory, there are certain tweaks made, and I think it fits what data and the lack of data as it current stands, and resolves some scientific objections/challenges to current evolutionary theory; such as the mechanism (mutation) doesn't account for well, the creation of new (external) information.

Therefore, we are discussing 2 different things. Evolution might be true, but currently there is nothing that I believe completely proves it, it seems like a logical theory in regards to what they have discovered, but that's due to the speculations and things that have been put into the links to make it seem complete. I believe it is another set of beliefs.

I agree that it is logical theory; and it can get dogmatic in asserting its truthfulness. A belief? Maybe a stretch. I don't know, at this stage, I don't have a conclusion on whether there is agreement on this statement.

Just a question regarding the fact you believe that there are right & wrong opinions... if evolution is true, what decides what is right or wrong? Shouldn't there be moral relativism if it is true? You can't have a clear definition of right and wrong with a 'scientific' origin.

That's a whole another kettle of fish. Ends do not justify means, and means do not justify ends. So if evolution leads to a poor conclusion such as I would deem moral relativism, it doesn't disprove the theory, only suggests that maybe the conclusion needs further rationalisation away from??

Ok, I now have time to answer this...
Firstly, I don't see how my belief as to how the world came into being is relevant to the discussion of evolution as I haven't brought in external belief factors to my arguments. I don't think there is enough solid evidence for any theory and therefore I am still investigating. Also, if something like evolution is true, and we don't have souls or there is no after-life, I don't see how knowing that we are evolving is important to us, we're going to turn into a pile of dirt anyway.

If evolution is a belief then it does become relevant. Another can of worms opened; is the question of purpose?

Secondly, I don't understand what 'animals appearing seemingly out of nowhere in the timeline' even means. How do we know they didn't exist before then and that we just don't have fossils further back than the times we believe they existed? Scientists don't know what they haven't found yet (obviously) and therefore there is no need for further explanation to this question. Feel free to ask more about this if need be.

Suprisingly, this presents a challenge to the evolutionist (see my discussion on the Cambrian explosion). The rest I would dispute is fallacious, an argument from ignorance/lack of data.

...

For your EDIT, we have to agree that the world is 3.6 BILLION years old.

4.5 billion was the figure?

I don't believe so, as I don't think there's enough evidence to prove this and I don't think carbon dating the way they believe it does.

There is enough evidence to prove that there is at least several millenenia older than 8000 years old (the most generous estimate)

How do you know you're not misinformed about these issues? Just because people don't agree with your opinion, doesn't mean they're wrong... there are studies showing that global warming doesn't exist and vaccines haven't been proven to work...

Studies which might be discredited by other studies, juts be careful.

I think your thinking is that your views are right until proven wrong and that other views are wrong until proven right... in order to be able to discuss properly, standards have to be kept the same for all opinions, wrong until proven right. Just a way we can discuss in a more logical environment

Interesting comment, like something I will say. But unfortunately everyone needs to address the fact that the inferences are taken from the data and hence seem to have some explanatory power. The real question is the subjectivity of confidence, for instance in the fossil record etc. Most scientists have confidence in the explanatory power of current evolutionary theory and so it is the predominant theory. It doesn't mean it is true, as it could be in the future proven false; but at the moment it is science's best guess, and so it is worth actually looking into it.

Personally I am more interested in certain elements being refined, rather than a full rewrite, particular those that seem to rely on assumptions originated predominating from a non-neutral standpoint; to be consistent regardless of the viewpoint of the scientist who interprets the data

 

[tazmim]

speaking as a transgender person (not stating what kind incase someone finds me out) of course there is, if your gender (brain map) and your sex (sexual biology) line up then you're not transgender. if your gender and sexual biology clash then you're trans. my sex characteristics cause me depression and dissatisfaction not because of gender roles, but because they shouldn't be there. its been something i've had at a young age. i know its hard to understand if you're not transgender/sexual. but the reason we go on HRT and SRS and feel happier afterwards is because those treatments re-align our sexual biology to alleviate the dysphoria and afterwards many transitioned people dont even call themselves transgender anymore as well.

if gender was truly a social construct conversion therapy wouldve worked and not caused further depression.

 

[Bluee]

Whoa this thread has exploded since the time I left lol

 

[dan964]

Probably because it easily got off topic.
That happens sometimes.

 

[Suu]

big bang is just a theory

What? B...but.... I watch it on TV.... Has my whole life been a lie?

(ye, but this thread has gone to hell lol)

 

[OkDen]

WOW... What a ride THAT was.