paradox

[AlgyTaylor]

Aaaaanyway, Pythagorases theorum. Is this potentially not correct in your opinion, given that it is a theory?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[jiminski]

This is not really an irony nor an oxymoron.

The Liberal Tradition is very different on this side of the Atlantic. In America, from what i have experienced, it is an insult used to label wishy-washy procrastinators, who have no balls.

In the UK Liberalism has historically been the high-minded pursuit of the empowerment of the individual to improve society as a whole; a micro-social answer to the problems of civilisation.. it is in that sense the diametric opposite to Socialism which attempts a macro-social solution.

One of the founding concepts of Liberalism is Utilitarianism. The basic formula of this political theory being that all laws or actions can be judged as acceptable if they add to the general happiness of society. If it is consensually accepted that a law or action adversely affects society it should be changed.

Based on this and as Global warming could well cause the extinction of society, i reckon changes in laws to prevent global warming is perfectly aligned with Liberal ideals.

[Iliad]

What about the fact:
1) An unpetrified Tyrannosaurus Rex bone with blood was found. How can that be millions of years old and still have blood.
http://www.vetscite.org/publish/items/002160/index.html
Because if we found a chicken bone in the ground with blood in it we would not say it was 65 million years old. This is an example of how a scientist is trying to explain how blood could exist for million of years to support a theory that is contradicted by the findings of a bone with blood.

Have you read the whole of that 2000+ page paper, then? Or just that summary?

Just a stab in the dark, but perhaps if you were to read the whole thing you'd find out why this was the case. You see, the difference between scientific theory and religious dogma is that religious dogma claims to be 100% correct all of the time, whereas scientific theory works around models trying to explain observable phenomenon. So as a consequence, when something like this comes up people say "oh, well maybe the present thinking needs to be modified". Nobody in the scientific community claims the current models of the universe [inc evolution] to be 100% correct, but they're the most accurate representation of the universe given the knowledge that we currently have.

Which is *highly* different from the intelligent design group.

Well said

[WidowMakers]

Sorry to hijack the thread. I am creating another one where we can discuss and debate evolution and creation.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 982#759982

[magneticgoop]

This is not really an irony nor an oxymoron.

The Liberal Tradition is very different on this side of the Atlantic. In America, from what i have experienced, it is an insult used to label wishy-washy procrastinators, who have no balls.

In the UK Liberalism has historically been the high-minded pursuit of the empowerment of the individual to improve society as a whole; a micro-social answer to the problems of civilisation.. it is in that sense the diametric opposite to Socialism which attempts a macro-social solution.

One of the founding concepts of Liberalism is Utilitarianism. The basic formula of this political theory being that all laws or actions can be judged as acceptable if they add to the general happiness of society. If it is consensually accepted that a law or action adversely affects society it should be changed.

Based on this and as Global warming could well cause the extinction of society, i reckon changes in laws to prevent global warming is perfectly aligned with Liberal ideals.

liberals generally refer to democrats who usually push for change, it is not an insult unless you are listening to an ultra conservative radio station

[jiminski]

[

/quote]liberals generally refer to democrats who usually push for change, it is not an insult unless you are listening to an ultra conservative radio station

Cheers mate, I think liberalism was so successful as a political theory that it was integrated and died out as a political movement in its own right.

It was all about individual rights being paramount and the building of society from the smallest constituent out. Within that comes the absolute rule that you can't infringe upon another's 'happiness' in the pursuit of your own.
Expanding that to the ability of big business to churn out harmful emissions in producing consumer durables; if the short term benefit to lots of individuals is hampered by legislation it would have to be generally accepted that the end result would be of greater benefit.

It is generally accepted that we have had a large impact on our environment and that if we do not stop it could cause a chain of events (perhaps already started) putting the world into an unstoppable spiral towards our own extinction: Debatable.

It is universally accepted that the climate is changing and that even if we are accelerating the change, through our actions, in even a tiny way: say we will bring closer the utter annihilation of human society as we know it by 10-20 years.

I would imagine this huge under-estimate would be worth a small inhibition to our behaviour. And therefore it would be in compliance with Liberal philosophy.