Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBA)   Maryland approves biology textbook without creationism. Also examining geography textbooks without Atlantis, physics textbook without ESP   (thewbalchannel.com) divider line 982
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8140 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2005 at 9:30 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



982 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-02-16 09:42:27 PM  
GREAT HEADLINE!!
 
2005-02-16 09:42:43 PM  
whatshisname:

Can you enlighten us as to the theories of creation and intelligent design as related to the fossil record?

Fossils are the bones of demons and devils put there to test our faith. If you believe solid evidence over the Word of God , you failed God's test, because the world is only 5376 years old.

/This was said to me with a straight face once.
 
2005-02-16 09:43:05 PM  
Ah jeeze, not this... well, you know.
 
2005-02-16 09:43:28 PM  
Creationists suck. "Our Dogma IS Science, and Your Science is just Dogma!" It's convenient that it's THEIR version of the creation myth that they feel must be taught in schools. What if we just turned around and said, "Fine, we'll teach intelligent design... that Brahma created the universe." Watch as their heads assplode.
 
2005-02-16 09:43:29 PM  
If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
/kidding
 
fb-
2005-02-16 09:43:44 PM  
I wish Christians would just craw back under whatever rock they crawled out of and let the rest of humanity progress.
 
2005-02-16 09:43:55 PM  
[image from img.fark.com too old to be available]
 
2005-02-16 09:44:20 PM  
StretchCannon

Of course the terms micro and macro evolution exist. Micro evolution is simply the changing frequency of alleles w/in a population. Macroevolution is the idea that these changes can lead to diversification of species.

/BSc
 
2005-02-16 09:44:24 PM  
This wasn't Maryland state as a whole, but just the Cecil County District that did it.
 
2005-02-16 09:44:45 PM  
You're all going to Hell.

/it had to be said
 
2005-02-16 09:44:47 PM  
Honestly, the world laughs at you for even making this an issue.
 
2005-02-16 09:45:19 PM  
McRat:

Yes. Whereas a laughably incomplete fossil record showing no transitional species-to-species forms (the heart of my problem with macroevolution) is really scientific.

Can you actually conceive of how long a million years is? 500 million years? a billion years? Over that much time of planetary change, can you actually expect there to be a complete fossile record??

Wow, I guess you actually are a creationist...only a god would be able to maintain a perfect fossile record over such a long time on a planet with such dynamic surface activity.

Yes, the fossile record is incomplete, but the timespans of that incompleteness are on the order of millions of years at times. A hell of a LOT can happen in that much time. The pre-cambrian -> cambrian "explosion" of life was rather quick on a geologic (i.e. talking in billions of years) time scale, but on a human time scale, that "explosion" probably took longer than the entire amount of time primates have been been walking bipedally and perhaps even an order of magnitude or two longer than said primates have been using tools...

Only a creationist would expect a complete, perfect fossile record.
 
2005-02-16 09:45:39 PM  
Oh MD, how I love you. Way to not sell out to the man! And by the man, I mean the christian right.
 
2005-02-16 09:46:30 PM  
"Creationist suck."

Good grief. I have my beliefs. You have yours. I believe in God. You believe we were spawned out of single-celled creatures. That's your belief.

I'm not going to bash you for being stupid. Don't bash me.
 
2005-02-16 09:46:40 PM  
To anyone attempting to "debate" McRat:

Do Not Feed The farking Troll.
 
2005-02-16 09:47:14 PM  
looks live bevets has a cabanaboy in mcrat. The blue states can teach their students biology, chemistry, astronomy and germ theory; the red steads can teach their students creationism, alchemy, geocentricism and the miasma theory. they can continue to be ignorant.
 
2005-02-16 09:47:19 PM  
but ESP is REAL! I can see the future. I see a flamewar ensuing.

/outta here
 
2005-02-16 09:48:05 PM  
MikeXpop:

I've always wondered why creationists are horrified by evolution, a theory, being taught in school, but have no problem with the Bohr Model or any of the other thousand theories we're taught.

Speaking of which, wasn't the Bohr Model disproved? It's still being taught.


The Bohr model is still useful to get a basic understanding of atomic structure. A realistic model would make heads explode.
 
2005-02-16 09:48:18 PM  
How is McRat trolling? At least he's expressed his opinion on the issue, instead of pointing a finger at someone and calling them names...
 
2005-02-16 09:48:27 PM  
My granddad use to joke that white mules never die. His evidence: Ever seen a dead white mule?

A friend of mine is a geology professor AND an evangelical. He was lecturing one day about new forms of atomic dating, and about the ages of some strata somewhere, when one of our fundie wackos jumped up and said WERE YOU THERE?
Which is what they are trained to do by their churches whenever someone says something that "threatens" their theology.

He then changed his lecture to how we developed nuclear weapons, and about how the behavior of nuclear reactions started out as a mathematical model. He asked the wacko if he believed that nukes actually contain stuff that can react and explode the way we are told they did in Hiroshima, and the kid says yes, to which the prof replied:

Were you there?

.
 
2005-02-16 09:48:28 PM  
[image from warwick.ac.uk too old to be available]

ID is a movement to get to public schools to promote Christianity in school. That's all it is.

ID is not scientific.
 
fb-
2005-02-16 09:48:58 PM  
pshaw

It's hard to not bash you for being stupid when you're going against all logic, reason and common sense to say that an all powerful magical space monkey that loves you made you and everything else.

C'mon.. it's stupid.. and it's fair to call you stupid.
 
2005-02-16 09:49:15 PM  
did i just see abe lincoln and george washington selling honda's?
 
2005-02-16 09:49:43 PM  
I didn't come from no monkey!
 
2005-02-16 09:49:48 PM  
Don't you evilutionists realize that everytime scientists find a transitional fossil, it creates two more gaps in the fossil record?
 
2005-02-16 09:49:56 PM  
pshaw

Genetic evolution does not require "belief". Oh, and there's no reason why you can't put both creation and evolution into your worldview, either. There's really no necessary dichotomy.
 
2005-02-16 09:50:02 PM  
[image from home.kc.rr.com too old to be available]
 
2005-02-16 09:50:41 PM  
I think alot of people are forgetting the definition of one keyword.

"theory"

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. (one of the many definitions)
 
2005-02-16 09:51:04 PM  
Perhaps a minor point with the submitter, but the Atlantis legend is almost certainly a garbled record of the very real destruction of the Minoan civilization on Crete.

[image from prometheus-imports.com too old to be available]
 
2005-02-16 09:51:06 PM  
fb-

Enjoy the anonymity of the Internet. In 500 years, it will be Creationism VS. Something Else. You can't stop it.
 
2005-02-16 09:51:17 PM  
McRat:

Yes. Whereas a laughably incomplete fossil record showing no transitional species-to-species forms (the heart of my problem with macroevolution) is really scientific.

In that case, you have no problem. Every fossil we have is of a transitional form. We are transitional form. 'Transition' (i.e. evolutionary change) is a continuous process. It's not something that started and stopped in the interstices between what fossils we have.

I think your complaint about the lack of 'transitional' forms is really a desire to see more fossils from more time periods. But that's disingenuous. If we have fossil A and fossil B, you will say 'We have no evidence of what happened in between!' Then we find fossil C, which falls between A and B, and you will say 'We have no evidence of what happened between A and C!" Ad nauseum. It's a fool's game.

And it's a moot point too, since the fossil record is only one of many brances of science which support the reality of evolutionary change. The evidence from molecular biology and comparative genomics is particularly compelling.
 
2005-02-16 09:52:11 PM  
It's not believing or not believing intelligent design is true or not true. It's that is not scientific. That is like saying god exists or doesn't exists (actually its exactly that). How do you test this? What empirical evidence would show you that this is true? what empirical evidence would show you it is not true?

Saying "because its complicated therefore god exists". Is believing that Nothing but God can create complex things. and with the assertion nothing in the whole universe can make complex things except God. Hell microchips are about as complex as life. Therefore I guess everyone who makes microchips must also be god. This is just silly. And it is not science no matter how much you try to dress it up.

And saying it's a good compromise is stupid that like saying if one person says 2+2=4 and another says 2+2=6 you should say 2+2=5. Thats dumb people need to learn what science is and what science isn't.

Also by the way a "theory" is not an unproven fact. A theory is as "true" as a fact is. It just means it is a more complex system then a fact. And by the way fact does not mean we are 100% sure its right it means there has never been anything to prove it wrong and based on emperical testing it seems true.

It's bothersome that the president of USA doesn't even understand this. (or atleast pretends to not understand)
 
2005-02-16 09:52:15 PM  
We have the pre-cambrian period. No fossils because single celled organisms aren't very good at fossilizing. OK

Seriously. Try here.
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Chapters/Ch%2019/Fossil-Embryos/NYtimes-m icrofossils.html

As for the rest of it, I'm to lazy to go over it right now, but I have to mention the 'tranistional'thing. All fossils are transitional. Every time a fossil is discovered which fills one of the 'gaps' it opens two new gaps.
 
2005-02-16 09:52:25 PM  
"Ever noticed that people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved?" - Bill Hicks
 
2005-02-16 09:52:29 PM  
whatshisname: Why are there no mammal or bird fossils older than 250 million years?

That one's easy. Earth is only like, 6,000 years old.
 
2005-02-16 09:52:42 PM  
"As for a perceived lack of fossil evidence, I'll go further, but try to be open minded. There is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional species... yet. "

What about the archaeopteryx?
 
2005-02-16 09:53:02 PM  
One can imagine that god created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding (which it is, and is measurable), there may be physical reasons why there had to be a begining. One can imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE A CREATOR, BUT IT DOES PLACE LIMITS ON WHEN HE MIGHT HAVE CARRIED OUT HIS JOB!

- Stephen Hawkins
A Brief History of Time

Only in the US is this even an issue!
 
2005-02-16 09:53:12 PM  
McRat - try googling "archaeopteryx"


Also consider how incredibly limited the fossil record really is. The conditions required in order for a dying animal to be fossilized are incredibly, massively rare. Then there's the likelyhood that someone will actually find said fossil. Also very rare.

But they do get found.


Let's also consider the massive amount of DNA shared by every living thing, not to mention vestigal organs, chemical dating, the counter arguments against the "intelligent watchmaker" (try comparing the visual pit of a limpet - just a series of nerve endings - to a human eye - and there are plenty of examples of steps between)...

There is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution, which is all you can ever do for a scientific theory - support it.

There is no evidence to support the theory that god created man.
 
2005-02-16 09:54:14 PM  
McRat:

Please illustrate where in the fossil record (i.e. the EVIDENCE)which shows transitional creatures.


McRat Does Not Exist!

First, show me a picture of McRat being conceived! You cannot! But wait, I will prove through mathematical science and precision that the odds against his conception are so remote that he could not possibly exist!

Assume 200 million sperm per ejaculation.

McRat had a 1/200,000,000 chance of being conceived by the particular sperm whose DNA defined him.

His parents each had the same chance, so (1/200,000,000) times (1/200,000,000) is the chance of his parents being conceived by the particular sperm that they were. This is multiplied by McRat's 1/200,000,000 chance to result in:

1/8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Thats right! A 1 in 8 septillion chance! And that is just considering McRat and one generation before him! Imagine if we expand it to include even one more generation! I won't because you get the idea.

Assuming that the earth is 6 billion years old:

That is 72,000,000,000 months (chances for conception). Compared to the 1 in 8 septillion chance, it is clear that even if McRat's parents and grandparents had been busy permuting sperm since the beginning of the earth, it is very unlikely that he would have been concieved.



I have proved, with as much integrity as intelligent design-ists can muster, that McRat does not exist.
 
2005-02-16 09:54:34 PM  
For some interestering dead ends of evolution, google "Burgess Shale", for such strange creatures such as Hallucigenia.

[image from nmnh.si.edu too old to be available]

This formation has many critters that a totally unrelated to anything that survived one of the great extinctions. It must have been "God playing dice" again.
 
2005-02-16 09:54:49 PM  
cuzin_it-You're kidding right?

I mean, you couldn't possibly be substituting the layman's definition of the word theory with the scientific usage of the word...

So I'll just assume you are kidding as opposed to assuming you are scientifically illiterate.
 
2005-02-16 09:55:15 PM  
p424c just won the thread
 
2005-02-16 09:55:34 PM  
Hornwrecker

Are those legs, spines, or something else on that thing?
 
2005-02-16 09:55:46 PM  
I dont know too much about the whole thing, but I'm going to give it a try.

The idea of evolution and creationism both rely on a great deal of faith. Slamming either side with "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!" isnt going to solve anything. The creationists believe in the creation of the universe based on the faith that they have in a Creator. The evolutionists believe that evolution is responsible for the state of flora and fauna today based on their belief that the fossil record is enough to show that evolution occurs on some level. So then, which takes more of a leap of faith: to believe in a Creator or to believe that fossils prove evolution. Micro-evolution exists as shown by the fact that we now drive cars and wear clothes - its all about adaptation. Macro-evolution? I dont know. I have never seen any hard evidence that would prove it. Neither have I seen scientific evidence of a Creator. Is it possible that they offer different viewpoints?

Those that say that intelligent design isnt scientific have no idea what they are talking about. Science is based on technology. If you can measure it, then you can call it science. If you can't measure it (as is the case with both evolution, creation, and intelligent design), then it is not science.

/not sure what his point was
//interested in the truth of the matter
 
2005-02-16 09:55:59 PM  
And although it's been said before, and I know I've said it before in these flamewars, it certainly bears repeating.

Science is the method and body of knowledge used to gain information about the natural world. Intelligent design posits the existence of something external to the natural world - a supernatural being or beings. Conjecture about the contents and existence of the supernatural world have no place in a science class dealing exclusively with the natural world.

It should end the argument, but since many Christian fundamentalists insist that their children and others be exposed to Christianity in the classroom, it doesn't.
 
2005-02-16 09:56:21 PM  
Quadruplator:

Honestly, the world laughs at you for even making this an issue.

Got to agree with Quadruplator here. It never ceases to amaze me that this is even a debate in the United States 21st century. I might expect it in a backwater like Afghanistan, but in the United States? It's a constant source of amusement.
 
2005-02-16 09:57:09 PM  
"The idea of evolution and creationism both rely on a great deal of faith. Slamming either side with "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!" isnt going to solve anything. The creationists believe in the creation of the universe based on the faith that they have in a Creator. The evolutionists believe that evolution is responsible for the state of flora and fauna today based on their belief that the fossil record is enough to show that evolution occurs on some level. So then, which takes more of a leap of faith: to believe in a Creator or to believe that fossils prove evolution. Micro-evolution exists as shown by the fact that we now drive cars and wear clothes - its all about adaptation. Macro-evolution? I dont know. I have never seen any hard evidence that would prove it. Neither have I seen scientific evidence of a Creator. Is it possible that they offer different viewpoints?"



In the future please do not commit the logical fallacy of equivocation. ;)
 
2005-02-16 09:59:25 PM  
Meatros

I very well could be both.
 
2005-02-16 09:59:46 PM  
p424c: McRat Does Not Exist!

Except that he's posting on the internet. Looks like another case of someone ignoring evidence.
 
2005-02-16 09:59:54 PM  
42
 
Displayed 50 of 982 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report