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
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8145 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2005 at 9:30 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



953 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

 
2005-02-16 10:00:34 PM  
cuzin_it:

cuzin_it


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)


Why would you choose to state the layman's definition of "theory" in a scientific discussion? In science the term "theory" is the strongest wording in which to phrase an idea. It isn't, to paraphrase Isaac Asimov, just something some scientists dreamt up one night after getting drunk.
 
2005-02-16 10:00:35 PM  
All your fossils are belong to me.

[image from stephenjaygould.org too old to be available]
 
2005-02-16 10:00:43 PM  
oops, forgot to include

/sattire
 
2005-02-16 10:01:24 PM  
Who cares?

/athiest and doesn't give a damn how we got here.
 
2005-02-16 10:01:36 PM  
2005-02-16 09:50:41 PM cuzin_it


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)


It would seem that you also do not know what this word means when used by scientists.
 
2005-02-16 10:01:51 PM  
Corvus: 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.

What a load. There is a reason that we have two different words, those being "fact" and theory." Might it be because they mean different things?

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

/frightened by Hornwrecker's creature/thing/deal
 
2005-02-16 10:01:59 PM  
canthaveitbothways:

The idea of evolution and creationism both rely on a great deal of faith.

Sorry, but this is not a true statement about evolution. There is monstrous amounts of evidence for evolution, it is available to be examined, tested, verified. There is ZERO evidence for creation. None. Nada. Zip. To accept it as a truth requires faith because you have no evidence for it, can't test it, can't verify it.
 
2005-02-16 10:02:13 PM  
Put the word "God" in place of "Evolution in the fundie arguments and they see how contradictory and ignorant they are.

If they do not believe evolution for lack of evidence, then they definately cannot believe in the inivisible man who lives in the sky.
 
2005-02-16 10:02:17 PM  
Who gives a fark? Really, how much do you need to learn about creationism, its not if it takes more than a couple seconds to learn. And BTW, the pope believes that there is nothing conflicting between christianity and evolution. Its those crazy protestants and those crazy atheists that think that the separation between church and state means that atheism is the belief to be taught.

When my biology teacher was asked by a person what if they didnt believe in evolution, she told her to pretend. Its not like they are forcing you to believe in it. In health class they can teach you about STD's but they cant force you to not have sex.

I would challenge someone to find a biology book that has something about creationism in it.
 
2005-02-16 10:02:41 PM  
cuzin_it - Yet another option that I hadn't considered...

Yet, you couldn't be just plain illiterate...because your posts would look like the following:


kl;jasfnsaoifhwuioghwp sadnoifpsa apf odsahf9uw
 
2005-02-16 10:03:09 PM  
Leave it to the secular humanists and commie liberal elitists to undermine traditional American values.
 
2005-02-16 10:03:47 PM  
Kaymon:

Except that he's posting on the internet. Looks like another case of someone ignoring evidence.

Yes, but can you prove that a third party has posted this in immitation of mcrat?

After all, someone who doesn't exist cannot post, therefore there is an "intelligent poster" somewhere, a title that surpasses us mere mortals in a non-specific, but suspiciously slashdot.org like way?


/still satire
 
2005-02-16 10:03:59 PM  
Regarding the proof for macro-evolution for all you creationists.

The planet is not littered with fossils. Out of every million creatures, how many do you suppose survived as fossils?

And here is a news flash. The evolutionary throw-backs that were variations that failed, well they did not live very long so it is even less likely that there would be fossils of them.

Anthropic reasoning: All the "design" we see in biology and the physics and chemistry have succeeded; the mere consequence of which is that we are here to observe it.

If you climb a tree, there may be many possible branches you can take to reach the end of any one particular limb, but there is only one path back to the ground.

It seems obvious, our existence, because you are only looking at it from one direction.
 
2005-02-16 10:04:17 PM  
Meatros: In the future please do not commit the logical fallacy of equivocation. ;)

Not a fallacy of logic if its true. Can't prove either one. That simple.
 
2005-02-16 10:04:30 PM  
cuzin_it:

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)


Gravity is a theory. How much do you doubt the existence of gravity?

Further, many biology in professors are calling evolution a fact
 
2005-02-16 10:04:40 PM  
fb-:

I wish Christians would just craw back under whatever rock they crawled out of and let the rest of humanity progress.

Holy shiat, is this the REAL fb- making a return?

Good to see you back.
 
2005-02-16 10:05:06 PM  
canthaveitbothways "What a load. There is a reason that we have two different words, those being "fact" and theory." Might it be because they mean different things? "

Theories are *explanations* of facts and laws. They can also be *fact*, ie, in relation to evolution, it's undeniable that the allele frequency in a gene pool evolves over time. That is fact. The theory, or explanation of that fact, is natural selection.
 
2005-02-16 10:05:15 PM  
SHMFOCTAST.
 
2005-02-16 10:05:21 PM  
canthaveitbothways: 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.

Can I have "I don't Have a Clue What I'm Talking About" for $1000, Alex?

Fossil evidence backs up evolution, but it is far from the only evidence. There are numerous observed patterns in life on this planet today which back up evolution.
 
2005-02-16 10:05:47 PM  
I always wondered what about the possibility of intelligent design with us as an experiment. I know all the athiests and such usually always go to the lowest level to attack the religous folks, but let us look at it another way. We create artificial habitats all the time, from antfarms to fishtanks. We attempt to simulate planets, galaxies and universes in computers. I read somewhere that scientists are attempting to bombarb gold ions to create a simulation of the begining of the cosmos. Is it so hard to imagine that *something* so far beyond made the planet or perhaps the universe as an experiment, a simulation or perhaps even an artificial habitat?
 
2005-02-16 10:05:48 PM  
canthaveitbothways:

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.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Science is not based on technology - technology is independent of science.

Evolution can be measured, has been measured, and is measured. The theory of evolution (or more appropriately the theory of evolution by natural selection) was brought about by the way science works - through observation of the species, hypotheses regarding the way the variation of species occurred, testing and retesting (through the fossil record and other means), and finally acceptance in the scientific community regarding its validity as a theory.

ID and creationism work the opposite way - they both assume that there was an entity responsible for creating the universe, and then look for evidence to back up that assumption. The fact that they don't find evidence makes the effort all the more laughable.

I learned the scientific method in the 7th grade - and that's all the knowledge I would have needed to tell you that ID and creationism aren't science.
 
2005-02-16 10:06:30 PM  
The fact that this is still an issue is just retarded, and probably the best argument AGAINST evolution, ever.
 
2005-02-16 10:06:33 PM  
canthaveitbothways:

What a load. There is a reason that we have two different words, those being "fact" and theory." Might it be because they mean different things?

Might it mean that they have more meanings in context? You do have some idea, I hope, of the sheer quantity of words in the English language that have more than one definition?

Something doesn't become a theory in science until there are significant amounts of evidence to demonstrate it.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
 
2005-02-16 10:07:49 PM  
McRat had a very well thought out post, that would spur intelligent discussion about some of the areas where the theory of evolution is lacking. Unfortunately he posted it on fark. He never claimed to be a creationist, he just said that some parts of the theory of evolution need to be looked at, questioned and if need be, modified. He also mentioned that accepting the current theory as dogmatic fact is a bad idea since that would tend to prevent people from challenging the theory and possibly improving upon it.

So everyone get off his back, questioning a theory is exactly what must be done to strengthen it. And those of you who don't understand that are just as intolerant as those who refuse to accept evolution.
 
2005-02-16 10:07:55 PM  
Meatros: Theories are *explanations* of facts and laws. They can also be *fact*, ie, in relation to evolution...

Why with evolution are theories considered fact? Read this:

"These genes do not control the same body structures from species to species, so an evolutionary explanation does not fit so well. "If the same gene can 'determine' structures as radically different as a fruit fly's leg and a mouse's brain or an insect's eyes and the eyes of humans and squids, then that gene is not determining much of anything. There is no current mechanism to understand how a homeotic-switching gene can change from coding for one function to another in different organisms. Suddenly, this new great evidence of evolution is yet another problem for evolutionary biology."

-Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., University of California Berkeley
 
2005-02-16 10:08:11 PM  
I'd like a scientologist's perspective.
 
2005-02-16 10:08:12 PM  
In our time: The Origins of Life BBC radio show on evolution (Real Player required)
 
2005-02-16 10:08:30 PM  
"Not a fallacy of logic if its true. Can't prove either one. That simple."

"Prove"? Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science. Nothing in science is 'proved'.

Again, you were equivocating the word 'faith', saying that it was the same with both evolution and creationism-when it's clearly not. Evolution has evidence, direct and indirect observation, and it's consistent. Creationism is not consistent, has only falsified evidence, and isn't observable. Therefore your argument is bankrupt.
 
2005-02-16 10:09:01 PM  
Someone called me stupid in this thread.

I'll respond to him later when he's evolved a conscience.
 
2005-02-16 10:09:13 PM  
michaeltrout: Science is not based on technology - technology is independent of science.

How far would science be if someone hadn't invented the microscope? Or the thermometer?
 
2005-02-16 10:10:01 PM  
canthaveitbothways: -Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., University of California Berkeley


I swear I recognise you name. Do you happen to know someone named J. Satzinger?
 
2005-02-16 10:10:17 PM  
essucht: Are those legs, spines, or something else on that thing?

They now think that the ones pictured on top are spines, although when it was first rediscovered, they had it kind of upside-down.

I think I'll steal some more bandwidth for purely educational purposes: I give you Anomalocaris. Orignally they thought that this was three separate animals as the parts are so strange. Particularly interesting is the mouth, which looks like a slice of canned pineapple. This was the largest known predator, some have been found that were about six feet in length. This beastie has no known links to any surviving groups.

[image from nmnh.si.edu too old to be available]
 
2005-02-16 10:10:27 PM  
Whenever a creationist asks me where the transitionary fossils are, I just ask him why it's so impossible that radical changes can't be made within a generation or two.

Usually he looks at me weird, so then I follow up with a, "Surely that's no more difficult to believe than that there's an invisible assembly line in the clouds churning out souls for the hundreds of babies born every hour, right?"

That nearly always ends the conversation.
 
2005-02-16 10:11:13 PM  
html skills?

I hope reversibleSummerAsshat's post was sarcastic. Or is that Bevet's I sense?
 
2005-02-16 10:11:18 PM  
llamalord:

Its those crazy protestants and those crazy atheists that think that the separation between church and state means that atheism is the belief to be taught.

A better statement is that many believe that no religion should be taught in schools and that any religion that is being taught should be done so in a church by those who want it.

Evolution, by the way, isn't a tool of atheism. It's neutral in philosophy and doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being or beings. Teaching it is irrelevant to a discussion about atheism.
 
2005-02-16 10:12:26 PM  
canthaveitbothways: "Why with evolution are theories considered fact? Read this:

"These genes do not control the same body structures from species to species, so an evolutionary explanation does not fit so well. "If the same gene can 'determine' structures as radically different as a fruit fly's leg and a mouse's brain or an insect's eyes and the eyes of humans and squids, then that gene is not determining much of anything. There is no current mechanism to understand how a homeotic-switching gene can change from coding for one function to another in different organisms. Suddenly, this new great evidence of evolution is yet another problem for evolutionary biology."

-Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., University of California Berkeley"

Jonathan Wells is a moonie who went to school specifically to discredit evolution. His opinion on the matter is useless-as he hasn't contributed any scientific research to peer reviewed sources.

This quote of his isn't a problem for evolution-at all. Please explain how it prevents evolution from occuring and what relevance it has.

Also, while you are at it, please explain endogenous retroviral inserts.
 
2005-02-16 10:12:38 PM  
canthaveitbothways:

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.

Please explain what you mean by "measuring" science.
 
2005-02-16 10:12:48 PM  
Meatros: "Prove"? Proofs are for math and alcohol, not science. Nothing in science is 'proved'.

All your friends above seem to think otherwise. I disagree that faith plays no role in the theory of evolution. I think that it takes some faith to believe that carbon-dating works correctly, that fossils originated from whichever period they are from. I think that it takes faith to believe that any scientific explanations are based on reality.

/skeptic of some science
//obvious statement
 
2005-02-16 10:13:19 PM  
McRat must be the newest version of Bevets. Look you knuckleheads, people like you make our entire country look like complete and utter morons. This fight is no longer being fought in most places around the world. If you were half as faithful as you claim to be you would not feel the need to enlist the help of the government to help promote your god, nor would you have to invent your own pseudoscience to soothe your delicate sensitivities and reassure you as you shiver with doubt in the face of facts that contradict your outdated, dogmatic beliefs. You're still wandering around in the wilderness without realizing that nearly everyone else has already emerged and has gotten on with their lives.

PS: "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are completely fictional terms invented by creationists to rationalize the fact that evolution really can be observed. These terms have absolutely no scientific meaning whatsoever. Every time someone uses these terms in an argument they lend just that much more validity to this nonsense.
 
2005-02-16 10:14:04 PM  
"Evolution, by the way, isn't a tool of atheism. It's neutral in philosophy and doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being or beings. Teaching it is irrelevant to a discussion about atheism."

I disagree. Just listen to all the atheist in this thread who use evolution as a tool for the atheist movement.
 
2005-02-16 10:14:39 PM  
canthaveitbothways:

How far would science be if someone hadn't invented the microscope? Or the thermometer?

You don't understand the difference between engineering and science. In your examples, had a scientist not figured out the principles of light refraction and magnification, then a microscope would not have been invented. Science isn't dependent on technology, it may be improved by it, but that just leads to better science. Sort of like building a house, you don't start with the roof.
 
2005-02-16 10:16:12 PM  
Ilixivium, I mean that science uses "measurements" to define itself. You use feet to measure distance same as you use Pascals to measure pressure. Science is all about measuring, whether its nanometers or light years.

I have no idea what endogenous retroviral inserts are. I do know that just because you disagree with someone's statements on an issue does not make them less credible. Berkeley accepted his doctoral research as valid. I dont see a M.D. or Ph.D next you name...

/just saying
 
2005-02-16 10:16:48 PM  
canthaveitbothways
from http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

The problem created by the false hierarchical nature inherent in this myth is that theories and laws are very different kinds of knowledge. Of course there is a relationship between laws and theories, but one simply does not become the other--no matter how much empirical evidence is amassed. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations (Rhodes & Schaible, 1989; Homer & Rubba, 1979; Campbell, 1953).

Please do your own search on the web on google for law vs. theories so you can see the thousands of web pages showing how you and the others that say a theory is an unproven law are wrong. Please the more of you that learn this the better.

Yes they DO have different meaning but not what you think they are. I explaind this in my comment earlier which I guess you didn't read.
 
2005-02-16 10:17:02 PM  
"All your friends above seem to think otherwise."

I doubt it, in fact, I think you misunderstand the word 'prove' and 'proof'.

"I disagree that faith plays no role in the theory of evolution."

I said you were equivocating the word faith, not that faith has no role in the theory. The problem with your idea of 'faith' is that it's applicable to the sun rising; in other words, under your definition I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. Which is quite a different thing then believing in a 6 day creation without a shred of evidence.

"I think that it takes some faith to believe that carbon-dating works correctly, that fossils originated from whichever period they are from."

You think they use carbon-dating to date anything over 50,000 years old?

That's interesting.

"I think that it takes faith to believe that any scientific explanations are based on reality."

Yet you type away on the fruits of science and I'm betting you get immunity shots-which are the fruits of evolution.
 
2005-02-16 10:17:56 PM  
pshaw:

I disagree. Just listen to all the atheist in this thread who use evolution as a tool for the atheist movement.

Example?

Even if you do find one, however, it doesn't negate what I said. They are as foolishly free to believe it supports them as the religious are to foolishly believe that it attacks their faith. Evolution explains a process of change. It has nothing to do with origin. The starting point may or may not have come from some supreme being, but evolution makes no claims about that at all.
 
2005-02-16 10:19:22 PM  
canthaveitbothways:

How far would science be if someone hadn't invented the microscope? Or the thermometer?

Context. Context is important.

Your point was that science is based on technology. It isn't. Science is based on the natural inclination of man to try to understand the world around him. That a scientist uses products of technology to aid him in this quest does not make science "based on technlogy".

Science wouldn't be very far along if there was no written communication. Does this mean that science is based on written communication?

Science may use technological advances as tools, and can in turn produce advances in technology - but technology is in no way the basis of technology.

And, of course, you could always try to focus on the meat and bones of my response to you, if you'd like to.
 
2005-02-16 10:19:27 PM  
Oh, the CREATION OF HUMANITY!

Evolution: Has evidence based on real things.
Creationism: Has no evidence other than "because we said so" argument

anyone care to disagree? *fisticuffs*
 
2005-02-16 10:19:30 PM  
"I have no idea what endogenous retroviral inserts are."

Figures.

"I do know that just because you disagree with someone's statements on an issue does not make them less credible."

I take it you know nothing about Dr. Wells do you?

"Berkeley accepted his doctoral research as valid."

That's because it wasn't anti-evolution.

"I dont see a M.D. or Ph.D next you name..."

You see my name on here?

How interesting. By the way, why would a medical doctor be an appropriate source for evolutionary discourse?

Do you talk to physic's Phds about heart surgery?
 
2005-02-16 10:19:34 PM  
McRat

The mathematical unlikelyhood is daunting. First you need a mutation to a whole other species in an organism. Now since different species can not mate and produce fertile offspring, to develop a new species you need two matching mutated critters. At the same time, and place.


The problem with trying to debate with people that don't believe in evolution is that they have absolutely no understanding of population genetics and molecular evolution.
 
2005-02-16 10:19:46 PM  
Ilixivium, I mean that science uses "measurements" to define itself.

You must have a pretty weak argument if the only way you feel you can make any progress is to completely redefine the terms being used.
 
Displayed 50 of 953 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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