What were the old requirements, a pulse?

Good. As long as acknowledge that Evolution is a theory and not a fact and religion is based on beliefs I am ok.

Whatever happened to the 'hot, female, and frustrated' requirement?

Klumthefark
Evolution is a theory

It's more scientific than creationism.

they should try that here in the states.

How about simply the "ability to teach". I know I had plenty of teachers that were literate enough but were awful at getting us to engage with the material...

Klum
You sound illiterate enough to be an Australian teacher? Are you one, cobber?

Good. As long as acknowledge that Evolution is a theory and not a fact and religion is based on beliefs I am ok.

--I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster put all the dinosaur bones in the ground...just to fark with us. Silly monster.

We need national standards for teachers and curriculum here in the US. It would make life easier for teachers as standard teaching materials then could be developed, even having prerecorded lessons for kids to watch so the teacher's time could be used for answering individual questions. We need to do far more to educate the masses.

I'm tired of the Theory Of Gravity being taught to my kids as if it were proven, too. I fall down, I get up, no problem.

KlumTheFark: As long as acknowledge that Evolution is a theory

I love it when people think that calling evolution "a theory" is some sort of insult. A theory, at least in scientific circles, is one step below a law, in that it's been tested, re-tested, and tested some more, and proves itself to be true over and over again, yet is open to revision or addition should new evidence present itself.

Can't say the same for religion...

KlumTheFark: Good. As long as acknowledge that Evolution is a theory and not a fact

Evolution is an observable fact.

The theory of evolution explains the observation.

I guess they'll learn how to spell "Australian" next semester.


"The framework, which has been developed by the Australasian Forum of Teacher Registration and Accreditation Authorities and approved by state and territory teacher registration boards, will specify required levels of numeracy and literacy"

mcorwin
Australasia means "Australia and New Zealand" (and maybe New Guinea and a few other island nations around Australia)

When in the history of mankind has fundamentalism ever had a positive impact on things? It seems that almost every positive step forward for humanity was when the fundies lost power, not gained it.

mcorwin: I guess they'll learn how to spell "Australian" next semester.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasia

Wow the evolution fundies sure get all worked up and defensive when you use that word, they don't much like that word.

/just a theory
//zealots

"The Australian Council of Deans President of Education Sue Willis..."

this sentence made my head hurt.

I've heard that Australasian girls vaginas are upside-down. Is this true?

frostcrow: Wow the evolution fundies

"I know you are, but what am I?"

"takes one to know one"

frostcrow: Wow the evolution fundies sure get all worked up and defensive when you use that word, they don't much like that word.

But we do like it. We also like when it is used correctly.

/Gotta go take a Jesus - BRB.

2007-03-11 07:32:09 PM jennh0813

"The Australian Council of Deans President of Education Sue Willis..."

this sentence made my head hurt.

"The Australian Council of Deans President of Education Sue Willis..." is not a sentence.

Sir Isaac Newton thought he was so clever but when he died... he fell over.

Gravity will not be mocked, my friends.

coretnor: "The Australian Council of Deans President of Education Sue Willis..." is not a sentence.

You're right of course. As for me, the expression "The Australian Council of Deans President of Education Sue Willis..." made my head hurt.

KlumTheFark: As long as acknowledge that Evolution is a theory and not a fact and religion is based on beliefs I am ok.

Statements like this are why a good science curriculum in our public schools is desirable.

Evolution is a theory.

However, your implication that theory is somehow negative is completely off-base.

Does this mean they have to take the section on Drop Bears out of the biology curriculum?

/going for my A-levels in "Wildlife that will kill you" studies

How come shiatty non-stories like this are approved when great stories are turned down? I submitted a story a couple of days ago that the Brits have just launched a satellite called Skynet - farking Skynet - and it wasn't greenlit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6434773.stm

As long as acknowledge that Evolution is a theory and not a fact and religion is based on beliefs I am ok.
I never hear "the fact of evolution"... I always hear about the theory.
Also, theories are supported by evidence.

Read Darwins chapter 5: Difficulties on theory.

"..Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibily fine degradations, do we not see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being as we see them, well defined?

But as by this theory ?innumerable trasitional forms must have existed why do we not find them embedded with in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why then is not every geological formation and and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps , is the obvious and gravest objection urged against my theory."

The Origins of Species. pp140.

Find out what that means before jumping to conclusions, like Darwin intelligently did.

Even Richard Dawkins explicitly submits to this reality. That's why he is holds his chair at Oxford. Read and see his confessions about the validity of spontaneous changes giving birth to systematic organisms, refuting Francis Crick's research on coding.

puffy999: I never hear "the fact of evolution"... I always hear about the theory.

Instead of "hearing", you might try "reading" some time.

Also, theories are supported by evidence.

Right. Hence the Theory of Evolution.

0Icky0
Are you English, or retarded?

And don't bother answering that, we know the answer.

To summarize, my point was that nobody in their right mind teaches evolution as "fact". I was responding to a post that suggested in a subtle way that this not be the case. Please try to keep up?

puffy999: Are you English, or retarded?

Why yes. Yes I am.

And you are an "asshole. Just a pure asshole" troll.

puffy999: To summarize, my point was that nobody in their right mind teaches evolution as "fact".

Your summarized point is wrong.
Evolution is a fact and a theory. Just like gravity.
Students should be taught this.
Maybe you could try keeping up.

Gash : How come shiatty non-stories like this are approved when great stories are turned down? I submitted a story a couple of days ago that the Brits have just launched a satellite called Skynet - farking Skynet - and it wasn't greenlit.

1) That is a monster thread-jack.

2) Your headline must not have been as Fark-overlord pleasing as the (at least) 2 headlines on Skynet that I saw. Just because yours didn't go green, it doesn't mean the story didn't hit the main page.

SchlingFo

However, your implication that theory is somehow negative is completely off-base.

Absolutely not. I think it's great stimulus to develop critical thinking and question our existence. What bothers me is that creationism and evolution block other new theories, equally dubious, from penetrating the academic arena. They row instead of steer objectivity and the learning process. But this, alas, is University specific and schools should stick to the basics.

Origins of Man versus evolutionary geneology = disputable

Evolution is lower species such as parcemia (model not applicable in other species) = undisputeable.

Oh yeh.. and I almost forget:



/never forget

"Hey, are you an Australian?"

"No, idio, I'm a girl. Im an Austrolassian."

puffy999: To summarize, my point was that nobody in their right mind teaches evolution as "fact".

It is a fact: You look at life forms, and the oldest ones are simpler than the newest ones. There's an evolution from simple to complex that happened over time.

There's theories about how that happened, why, etc. These theories are collectively known as the theory of evolution.

coretnor: "The Australian Council of Deans President of Education Sue Willis..." is not a sentence.

Actually, it is a sentence FTFA. The "..." at the end indicates that I didn't feel like typing the whole thing out, but that there is more. If I thought that was the full sentence, I would have used one dot, known as a period.

F42

It is a fact: You look at life forms, and the oldest ones are simpler than the newest ones.


There are 143 renowned evolutionists, 15 classical theories based on different evidences. 14 of them have been refuted by each other. The only one that is being propogated by you is spontaneuous mutation eg. trasformation from cold blooded lifeforms to warm blooded lifeform was refuted in 1998 in the Journal of Earth. Go to a library, get it and read up. Learning to differentiate between mammilian modes, prototypes will also help.

If I recall properly the 500 million year fossils of frogs are EXACTLY anatomically the same as they are today. 240 million year old fossils of starfish found in numerous amounts and regions of the world, EXACTLY the same as today. There are 12 fossils of birds 150 millions years old EXACTLY the same as today.

I've heard that Australasian girls vaginas are upside-down. Is this true?

If you mean quite often farked in the head, then yes

Yeah as an ozie my educazn was s3vrlee laquing in kwalitee sauces

See the little goblin, see his little feet.
And his little nosey-wose, isn't the goblin sweet?

Yes!

KlumTheFark
My library only holds journals that, you know, actually exist. But just keep on continuing to make stuff up. Ever thought of being an editor on wikipedia?

KlumTheFark: If I recall properly the 500 million year fossils of frogs are EXACTLY anatomically the same as they are today. 240 million year old fossils of starfish found in numerous amounts and regions of the world, EXACTLY the same as today. There are 12 fossils of birds 150 millions years old EXACTLY the same as today.

See the larger bold part? That's where you went wrong.

KlumTheFark: If I recall properly the 500 million year fossils of frogs are EXACTLY anatomically the same as they are today.

Just some more details for you to ignore:

The earliest known frog is from 250 million years ago. That's 250 thousand thousand years later than what you stated.

Is it anatomically the same as modern frogs?

Again, more details for you to ignore: Their bodies were longer. They had more vertebrae and unfused tailbones. Their tibias and fibulas were also unfused.

Now the question is, will you continue to bear false witness and make the Baby Jesus cry? Or will you man up and admit that you don't know what you are talking about?

Looks like Bevet's little brother just showed up.

KlumTheFark

The earliest known frog was a Triadobatrachus, which was a much more primitive frog than your modern day variation. And evolution doesn't happen at a steady rate.

Bean Bag
Nice try, but if you add an email to your profile, and I assure you that I will email you the Journal name + edition once I am at the lab. I think I might have missed Earth "studies, or sciences, or origins"

Nimnom +

There are fossils around 250 million years old of the same species of frogs that we have today., Reason to believe that Tradobatrachus and the 'Modern' frog may have co-existed around the same time. They are of different species. Currently is no intermediary link between the two.

0Icky

Jesus did not not create life. Evolutionists and Creationists are not the only options. Read up the Origins of Life, the very basics of understanding the theory instead of propogating one sided arguments. You seem to hate Christianity and channel your hate by using whatever assumptions as evidence to do so. You missed the bus where the Bible itself has discredited the religion going against modern scientific facts, and undergoing severe revision considered fabrications.


Think really hard about this.
"DNA structures could have never emerged by chance"

Sources for DNA: Francis Crick
Sources for Emergence: Fred Hoyle

While you are at it present one example where mutations have increased the genetic information.

Have you even read any Richards Dawkins? Have you taken account of the non correlating assumptions he reserves?

KlumTheFark: While you are at it present one example where mutations have increased the genetic information.

Amazing. It's like Whack a Mole.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Search&db=pubmed&term=gene+d uplication+evolution&tool=fuzzy&ot=%22gene+duplication+evolution (pops)


Tell me something Klark. You have information that will overturn modern biology. You know how to type. You have the time to type.
Is there some reason that you haven't published your findings in a science journal?