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.

(Salt Lake Tribune)   Utah Board of Education rejects Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. "Invoking the supernatural can explain anything, and hence explains nothing."   (sltrib.com) divider line 445
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

18054 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2005 at 2:40 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



445 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-09-03 11:00:19 PM  
Come on, intelligent design is just as plausible as the idea that 65 bilion years ago xenu stacked bodies up around a mountain and blew them up with an H-Bomb, thus creating the body thetans.

Really, they're both fonded on the same evidence.
 
2005-09-03 11:05:15 PM  
felgraf
It's okay. It's probably the way I typed it up.
 
2005-09-03 11:06:27 PM  
The Billdozer

The argument Weaver made has nothing to do with ID. It had everything to do with the way the media reports stories.

So, Weaver is remarking about how the media loved Reagan, fawned over him for eight years, and hated Carter and trashed any prospect of his re-election (against Reagan)? Wow, I didn't realize that Weaver was such a liberal tool.

sixdays

why not take just ONE freakin day out of a six week chapter in the science book to address a few of the many, many problems with Darwin.

I hope that this is being done, becuase anything else would be truly contrary to the spirit of science. (~) I put the sarcasticon there because this is a load of cr*p. The same "one day out of six weeks" should be done for just about ALL scientific theories -- gravity, the germ theory of disease, quantum mechanics, relativity, plate techtonics, Euclidean geometry, and so on. Frankly, I'd prefer one to three minutes out of each single HOUR of class-time...


sixdays

Miller-Urey discredited shocks me not. Darwin and Haeckel, you've got to be kidding me. You do realize, I hope, that in the entire history of science not a single human being has ever come up with a single theory that was perfect right from the start. This kind of thing is only claimed by various religions, whose scriptures were "Divinely Inspired."


bmasso

So, if after, say, a blood transfusion, you are diagnosed with HIV, you will deliberately eschew taking any medicines? After all, it is only a "marker."

This approach has certainly worked well in Africa.


Tatsuma

I'm pretty sure he gets offended at "DEMONcrat" or "democRAT" though

I am registered as a Democrat here in Flori-duh, due to now-outmoded laws about who could and could not vote in primaries. I take no offense whatsoever at your sugested words, and could probably do better -- Will Rogers once said, "I belong to no organized political party: I am a Democrat." In fact, I vote for whomever seems likely to do a halfway decent job, or, in the case of the presidency, whomever seems less likely to fark things up. So far, it seems I am on the right side, even though I voted for two losing candidates in a row.


Tatsuma

I'd call myself a post-nihilist

How nice for you.Does this mean that you believe you really do exist, and therefore deserve a cookie?


alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax

I eschew the threads entirely, and merely read the articles. Evolution is the root of atheism, of communism, nazism, behaviorism, racism, economic imperialism, militarism, libertinism, anarchism, and all manner of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice.

Henry M. Morris


So, there was no atheism, racism, economic imperiialism, mititarism, libertinism or anarchism, much les anti-Christian stuff, before Darwin? Interesting.


mbrother

Smallberries
: Lots of important scientists are sure that evilution is completely wrong

Don't bother arguing with Smallberries here, He is trying to stand in for Bevets, and not doing so good a job of it. His link is broken, too.


Quadriplegic

It's not evolution that leads to a rejection of religion, it's the exposure of the ignorance of religious doctrine and holy texts that causes a rejection of religion.

Or, as I have quoted several times here on fark, form ancient Indian writings, "It is not the ku that is in the khabs, it is the khabs that is in the ku."

Live your life according to this, and you cannot go wrong...
 
2005-09-03 11:09:02 PM  
Could somebody make a FSM Jack Chick paradoy.

Somethign like "When Timothy's Dad lost his job, he discovered that no matter what your income, Pasta is always low in price."
 
2005-09-03 11:12:16 PM  
I don't know where OpenFry got his information about Joseph Smith. I have read much and I have never heard any of that.

Of course, there is a certain level of irony here. Genetics (one of the things derived and supported by evolutionary theory) shows that the inhabitants of North America are not related to the Israelites in any way whatsoever, contrary to the teachings of the Book of Mormon.

Not surprising, as the Pearl of Great Price was also shown to be a fraud when they discovered the original Egyptian texts that Joseph Smith claimed to have "translated". Of course they were nothing close to what he claimed. But when you have nutballs like Hugh Nibley making up archeological proof out of whole cloth, it is not suprising that the true believes still hold on to a lie.

Just because most Mormons are nice people does not make the Book of Mormon any less of a scam.
 
2005-09-03 11:12:59 PM  
Hurrican Katrina alone is a proof that there is no god.
/I know it's not, but damn wtf.
 
2005-09-03 11:13:37 PM  
*hurricane
 
2005-09-03 11:19:40 PM  
heap: isaac newton also wasted a large portion of both his life...and his intelligence...in the pursuit of alchemy.
why must we keep that from the school kids? teach the alchemist controversy!


Where did you learn about alchemy? I learned about it in school. In science.
 
2005-09-03 11:27:43 PM  
I agree with the inteliigent design theory. If you have to invoke a supernatural entity to create the universe then you might as well call it God. What's the alternative, a tiny ball of infinitely-dense matter which suddenly decided to explode? Please. That's no more plausible than "turtles all the way down".
 
2005-09-03 11:28:24 PM  
Lord_Baull

Evolutionism can't explain homosexuality.

For that matter, ID can't either.


An evolutionary explanation for homosexuality is that some (more than one) genes tend to make some men more sexually active and some tend to make women more sexually active, these promote reproduction from those individuals. However, if a man inherits too many of the "female sexual activity" genes he will become a homosexual. (Vice versa for lesbians) The individual will be less likely to reproduce, but the presence of those genes within the genome helps the species as a whole.
 
2005-09-03 11:40:41 PM  
Can anyone who supports ID or creationism please tell me how your theory explains:

1 Extinctions

2 Vestiges

If you have theories for these, I'll gladly discuss them, but until you have such a theory, you can't expect it to be taught in schools.
 
2005-09-03 11:42:55 PM  

"If atheist liberals had their way, they would ban Isaac Newton from the classroom."


That's a very good point. As we speak, Atheist Libs in Georgia are in a court battle with the state Educartion Board to try to get refrences ot Newton removed from textbooks.
By the way, I'm being 'sarcastic'.
 
2005-09-03 11:50:27 PM  
Theology: Why is there Hurrican Katrina.

Possible Answesr:
- God hate New Orleans
- God is selectively killing some poeple
- God has no control over the weather
- God does no care
- God works in mysterious (i.e. cruel) ways
- God is a fictional character with nothign to do with anything

Also, human suffering proves that man has no 'free wil' since if his will was free he would choose to live a life of happiness. Where was the katrina victim's free will?
 
2005-09-03 11:59:46 PM  
heap isaac newton also wasted a large portion of both his life...and his intelligence...in the pursuit of alchemy.
why must we keep that from the school kids? teach the alchemist controversy!


Becasue he was scientifically wrong. Now this may come as a hock, buty science does not validate theories just becasue of who proposed them.

To repeat,

we do not teach alachamy becasue it is wrong.

we do not teach Intelligent Design becasue it is wrong

Noah's son saw him naked and was cursed for ever! Mary Magedeline was a hooker! Eating Seagulls is punishable with death!

Why do we keep those parts of the Bible out of church?

Jesus Forgave people!
 
2005-09-04 12:29:24 AM  
Sigh...

I guess I'll say it again though nobody is listening. Evolution is a theory dealing with biology. If somebody interjects politics, religion, metaphysics, or anything else into it, evolution becomes a pseudoscience.

Intelligent design could be taught in public schools as part of the philosophy and comparative religion class. So could materialistic naturalism, pantheism etc.
 
2005-09-04 12:34:12 AM  
Go Utah.

Sadly, I predict that creationism will always have some lurking presence in the political scene, simply because politicians have no respect for the truth. Creationism is dishonest bullshiat, and its advocates thus speak the language of every city councilor and senator in this country. Popular lies always have the ear of a democracy. This problem is compounded by the fact that scientists care nothing for sophistry.

Also:

Anagrammer-

You're being rather unfair regarding agnosticism. Agnostics are absolutely certain that nothing can ever be known about the realm of the supernatural, as the supernatural is by definition outside the natural realm in which we reside. To either believe that the supernatural exists or to believe that it does not exist is to make a claim based upon faith that has no correspondence to the available evidence, which in this case extends no farther than the definition of "the supernatural." When people claim that atheism is a "faith," and are being intellectually honest about it, they mean it in the sense that the ccategorical denial of the possibility of the supernatural is a proposition taken on faith alone, since no evidence for or against the supernatural can exist. By definition, God can do anything, including exist imperceptibly and operate through undetectable means, so the fact that you've never seen God do squat doesn't mean he hasn't or that he doesn't exist: maybe he exists and hasn't done squat, or has done squat via means we can't understand.
 
2005-09-04 12:35:38 AM  
SkinnyHead

Where did you learn about alchemy? I learned about it in school. In science.

Yes, indeed. Namely in the conext of, "This is wrong, but people used to believe it." Newton turned into a mercury-drinking nut job later in his life, crazed with finding the philospher's stone and all that crap. If you'd like the same treatment for his beliefs in the CoE's version of God I think that would be great. Something like, "Newton also believed in a bunch of other nonsense besides Alchemy, including the now dead religion of 'Christianity'"
 
2005-09-04 12:44:37 AM  
Smallberries
Evolutionism(sic) can't explain homosexuality.

Actually, evolution can explain it quite well.

For example, one gene known to increase the prevalence of homosexuality in males ALSO causes an increase in the fertility of females. Meaning, the gene has a positive effect in some individuals, and a negative one in others. It is entirely possible for a gene increasing male homosexuality to be INCREASED in the population by selection.

Even if the gene were entirely deleterious, evolution can't promise that it will be removed. There are examples of harmful mutations which in fact spread through the population until they reached 100%. Natural selection is not always the strongest force acting on a gene -- if the population size is small (the effective population size of humanity averaged since the species formed is only about 10,000 individuals), if mating is significantly nonrandom (until the advent of worldwide travel, people were substantially more likely to mate with people in their tribe/city/nation versus someone on the other side of the planet), and if the selective disadvantage is relatively weak, then natural selection will be weaker than genetic drift.

And even much more harmful mutations, like cystic fibrosis, continue to exist. The reason here is that natural selection is also slow, especially on rare alleles. If 5% of your population are carriers for a lethal recessive disease, only 0.25% of fertilizations will result in the lethal combination. Natural selection should eventually remove the allele, but it could take many thousands of years.

Given the prevalence of homosexuality in nature, the most likely cause is the first -- that the same alleles which increase likelihood of homosexual behavior also have positive benefits.
 
2005-09-04 12:45:53 AM  
"Of course, there is a certain level of irony here. Genetics (one of the things derived and supported by evolutionary theory) shows that the inhabitants of North America are not related to the Israelites in any way whatsoever, contrary to the teachings of the Book of Mormon."

A good list of links on this very topic. It's been investigated a lot more thoroughly than you might think.

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html

"Not surprising, as the Pearl of Great Price was also shown to be a fraud when they discovered the original Egyptian texts that Joseph Smith claimed to have "translated". Of course they were nothing close to what he claimed. But when you have nutballs like Hugh Nibley making up archeological proof out of whole cloth, it is not suprising that the true believes still hold on to a lie."

http://www.boap.org/LDS/critic.html

The best article I've ever read on the Book of Abraham. Among other things, it points out that the Book of the Breathing text, despite what people like to think, was not claimed to be the source material; it was claimed to be from the same collection of source material/papyri from whence the translation of the BofA came.

/doesn't expect anybody will actually read anything
//it's the principle of the thing, dagnabbit
 
2005-09-04 12:51:06 AM  
Paranoid_Android

Because some time during the first reformation of the original church some guy named Luther came along and shook things up. Ever since then the church in general has been split up worse than a meth addled southern family.

For what it's worth there is a growing movement for another reformation in America and overseas (at least from what I have been talking to my theologian friends), that being a recognition that the Messiah never did away with the old laws. That he never commanded them to not be recognized nor followed, but rather that he fulfilled prophecy and allowed even an unclean soul *note(one who sinned against law) to be let into heaven through forgiveness through him.

For instance, you can't eat pork, and once you do eat pork your condemned by God, unless you either make peace with god through sacrifice and offering (old Jewish law) or you accept the messiah and accept his sacrifice.

Either way, youre not supposed to eat Pork and according to law your willingness to continue to eat Pork and disobey law is proof that you do not accept the prophecy of the messiah.

I'm sure the rather less educated religion haters are shaking there fists and heads and getting ready to flame on like Johnny himself, but honestly the truth of the matter is. Creation by a Creator does not negate evolution, and both can be taught in their respective contexts.

For instance, Evolution can stay in the science class, where it belongs, because at this point we do have 80% of the picture and we can relatively ascertain what the other 20% is going to be.

Creationism and the rest of the worlds religion can be taught in a social studies class.

Couldn't we all just agree on that.. both sides geting what they want?
 
2005-09-04 01:01:19 AM  
Couldn't we all just agree on that.. both sides geting what they want?

Sadly, representation in social studies class is not good enough for creationism. Creationists will settle for nothing less than having creationism counted as science, even though it is nothing of the kind. Advocates of creationism do not see this as a problem however, but simply look upon it as an opportunity to redefine science so as to include any old garbage they want it to.
 
2005-09-04 01:08:26 AM  
sixdays
2)Darwin's Tree of Life
Darwin's specifically said nautral selection would work "slowly, by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations" and that "no great or sudden modifications were possible."


Darwin also had no knowledge of genetics, and DNA wouldn't be discovered for over a century. The mechanisms of inheritance were totally unknown to him. His ideas provided an important starting point; they are hardly the end of the story, any more than Newton is the end of the story on dealing with motion, or Bohr on the nature of the atom.

But the fossil record doesnt show this. Around 540 million years there was the Cambrian Explosion, the "biologial big bang." In the geologic sense, we went from jellyfish to mammals overnight. In football terms - if one endline is single celled organisms and the other goal line is humans, you start walking from one end to the other, and up until the 97 yard line theres nothing, then bang, in one stride, you have animals. This contridicts darwin's idea. Further fossil discoveries do nothing to help him out. In fact, they hurt.

Yes, and this is partially because Darwin's idea on the time frame is wrong, and partially because the "explosion" still took millions of years. It also illustrates a problem with the fossil record -- all the fossils tell you is what animals look like; you get little insight into the biology and almost no insight at all into the cellular microbiology of an organism.
 
2005-09-04 02:21:55 AM  
For every living creature that succeeds in getting a footing in life there are thousands or millions that perish. There is an enormous random scattering for every seed that comes to life. This does not remind us of intelligent human design. "If a man in order to shoot a hare, were to discharge thousands of guns on a great moor in all possible directions; if in order to get into a locked room, he were to buy ten thousand casual keys, and try them all; if, in order to have a house, he were to build a town, and leave all the other houses to wind and weather - assuredly no one would call such proceedings purposeful and still less would anyone conjecture behind these proceedings a higher wisdom, unrevealed reasons, and superior prudence."
 
2005-09-04 03:23:20 AM  
LocalCynic

sixdays: Im just saying that text books pass off outdated theory as fact. It gets personally when, from what ive read, the single biggest cause of people turning from religion is high school and college level biology classes. And im not saying dont teach evloution - its a big deal and should definately be taught. But its passed off as factual, flawless, and undisputed. Antheists love to tout how they embrace "critical thinking." So what wrong with critical thinking here? Isnt that the whole point to science?

So why not just either a) include evidence that certain experiments or theories were flawed, or b) cease teaching experiments that were proven wrong?

Both solutions would address your concern without the need to include intelligent design as an "alternative theory." And for that matter if intelligent design was included, evidence disputing it should be included as well. None of this nonsense about it being included as the last word that can't be challenged or "just a side note."

Lets just teach kids not to accept things at face value. In anything.

Great idea. "Hey kids, scientists assume that HIV causes AIDS but there's no proof of that. So why don't you go hump to test the hypothesis?" The kind of radical skepticism that you advocate is dangerous because it amounts to little more than nihilism. Scientific positivism encourages a level of informed skepticism, but we shouldn't aim to create generations of Descartes who sit around and cogito all day.


LC dude, read before responding. Im a Christian who DOESNT WANT ID IN THE CLASSROOM! But, since your debating style includes making up what the oother person said, I will no respond How dare you say that child porn serves to better society? Thats crazytalk. Child porn doesnt help, it hurts! Cmon man!

Dimensio

Others can address sixdays's other nonsense, I'll go for this because it's a very common creationist canard: ..

..Here's the rub: you can't just point out that textbooks publish Haeckel's drawings. Haeckel's drawings were an attempt to support a specific failed hypothesis. To show that a textbook is pushing a known fraud, you must show that the textbook is also using the drawings as evidence for Haeckel's failed hypothesis. You can't, though, because no textbook does that. No one pushes the hypothesis that organisms show traits of evolutionary ancestors while in the embryonic state. You're clinging to an old fraud and trying to pretend that it's still being pushed when it isn't because creationists are willing to cling to any scrap of bad behaviour by a scientist and dishonestly distort it beyond all reality. Sadly, this is as close to "honest" as creationist arguments get.


Funny, your evolutionists buddys said just a few posts later:

sixdays

Miller-Urey discredited shocks me not. Darwin and Haeckel, you've got to be kidding me. You do realize, I hope, that in the entire history of science not a single human being has ever come up with a single theory that was perfect right from the start. This kind of thing is only claimed by various religions, whose scriptures were "Divinely Inspired."


So, first off, cmon here unbelievers. At least Christians bring a fairly unified message. Which is it? I got one friggin genius asking how dare I accuse Haeckel, and then youre telling me of course hes wrong, but thats besides the point. Which is it? And heres the problem Haeckels drawings are still being used as support of evolution. My 10th grade bio book (dont worry, I took a pen and wrote Christian responces in the margins, complete with verses. Really just to make people like you guys heads asplode). THATS my problem.

Steak dude, calm your butt down. Youre sounding as calm and rational as Stuart Smally. Lies? Please.

DJ Scratch 'N' Sniff Hitler


(we join this rant already in progress) It's accepted among SCIENTISTS because it explains the origins of human life and fits what we've observed better than any other theory. If someone comes up with a better theory based on observation and not resignation, then it will be looked into. That's how science works.

No, not based on how youre acting. Darwinism has issues. But try, just freakin TRY to raise them in conversation. You say Christians are irritating? Try having a real discussion. You should rephrase it to say if someone comes up with a better theory that we agree with and fits nicely with what we want to believe because why should I have to change MY prejudices? Wait, what were we talking about?


orion_blastar wow. That was actually a well thought out, insightful point. Well played.

oldebayer

sixdays

why not take just ONE freakin day out of a six week chapter in the development of life course to address a few of the many, many problems with Darwin.

I hope that this is being done, becuase anything else would be truly contrary to the spirit of science. (~) I put the sarcasticon there because this is a load of cr*p. The same "one day out of six weeks" should be done for just about ALL scientific theories -- gravity, the germ theory of disease, quantum mechanics, relativity, plate techtonics, Euclidean geometry, and so on. Frankly, I'd prefer one to three minutes out of each single HOUR of class-time...

wait, huh? I dont know if im supposed to high five you or argue. This is post number three for me all time, my comp doesnt read sarcasticon. Is there a firefox extension for it?

Paranoid_Android truly breathtaking. Fourth grade reasoning at its finest. To you, PA, you might totally dig a college level philosophy course. People have been answering your point for centuries.

and finally, i think we should defer the evloution arguement to tryptik (in his responce to why first hand accts of god dont count)

Science cannot study what cannot be observed and repeated. If someone did indeed observe god, it is reeally useless to us unless we can get him to repeat whatever it is he does so we can observe it and study it.

Hmmm... now thats curious. Does evloution pass the test? Can it be observed? No. Adaptation, sure. Evloution, by defination, cannot. Can it be repeated? Of course it can! Why, just the other day, I dropped a nine volt battery into a bowl of primordial oozes and I evolved a monkey! It was sweet! So, by tryptik's defination, science shouldnt be dealing with the religion of evloution. (not really, just sayin, but still, its pretty funny, at least to me)

/way, way late to the party cause hollywood video needs me dearly
//not really
///three posts, 8 slashes. starting out strong
////funny, for my years of lurking, ive allways freakin slash whores. interesting...
///// wow. what a long post.
 
2005-09-04 03:42:25 AM  
sixdays

Go back to lurking.
 
2005-09-04 03:58:04 AM  
How dare you say that child porn serves to better society?

No one is suggesting this. In typical dishonest creationist fashion, you are responding to clear-cut sarcasm as though it was a serious statement, even though you should know better.

Once again, you make my point for me: creationists are liars.


So, first off, cmon here unbelievers. At least Christians bring a fairly unified message. Which is it? I got one friggin genius asking how dare I accuse Haeckel,

Who said that? I don't see any posts to the effect of "how dare you accuse Haeckel." Looks like you're lying again, though this is no shock coming from a creationist.


and then youre telling me of course hes wrong, but thats besides the point. Which is it?

Haeckel was wrong. It was known that he was wrong when he first published his crap. His work has never been part of the body of knowledge of the theory of evolution.


And heres the problem Haeckels drawings are still being used as support of evolution.

And what is the context of these drawings? Be specific.


My 10th grade bio book (dont worry, I took a pen and wrote Christian responces in the margins, complete with verses. Really just to make people like you guys heads asplode). THATS my problem.

So what's the context of Haeckel's drawings? I already explained what was wrong with them and the context that needs to be in place for a textbook to be pushing his fraudulent work, yet you completely ignored everything that I said. Why? Are facts inconvenient to you?

What am I saying? You're a creationist. Of course facts are inconvenient to you!

So first you lie about responses to your claims about Haeckel, and then you dishonestly ignore the entire substance of my post on Haeckel. Typical creationist dishonesty. What a shock.


Darwinism has issues.

So you assert. And the "issues" that you present turn out to be nothing more than the usual creationist canards.


But try, just freakin TRY to raise them in conversation.

Yeah, isn't it annoying that you get called out for lying?


You say Christians are irritating?

Not all Christians are annoying. Fundamentalist creationist Christians who lie when discussing evolution get rather unpleasant, though.


Hmmm... now thats curious. Does evloution pass the test? Can it be observed?

Yes.


No. Adaptation, sure. Evloution, by defination, cannot.

False. Evolution has been observed. You are attempting to dishonestly redefine evolution.


Can it be repeated? Of course it can! Why, just the other day, I dropped a nine volt battery into a bowl of primordial oozes and I evolved a monkey!

Dishonest creationist tactic #623: create a strawman characterization of the theory of evolution that is nothing like the actual theory and then attack the strawman, pretending to be making a profound point.
 
2005-09-04 03:59:38 AM  
sixdays

No, not based on how youre acting. Darwinism has issues. But try, just freakin TRY to raise them in conversation. You say Christians are irritating? Try having a real discussion.

I have, and I do. There is spirited debate in the evolutionary biology world, and there isn't a single person anymore who subscribes to every one of Darwin's views. Evolutionary biology changes, and there isn't just one single "theory of evolution", there are several competing theories.

As to observable and repeatable, we have observed the results of it. Imagine you walk into a room, and see a person in a pool of blood. Upon closer inspection there is a finger-sized hole in the front of his head, and a larger hole in the back. The wall behind him is spattered with blood and there's a bullet embedded in the wall.

You can factually state the man was shot in the head, even without observing the gunshot and without re-shooting him.

And there are branches of science which aren't recreatable in the lab. Nobody has made a star in the lab, but we know quite a bit about the process from the observations we've made. Similarly we know a large amount of the mechanisms of evolution from our observations.
 
2005-09-04 06:23:16 AM  
EvilHamster

I don't know if I'd say that there is no evidence of God. There are numerous historical references to him which say he exists. Why arn't first-hand accounts from texts accepted as evidence?(however questionable it may be) I believe Julius Caesar existed, but what proof do we really have?

1. You could visit your local insane asylum and get a number of 'first hand accounts' of a variety of Gods - are these proof (or, indeed really first hand accounts?)

2. Bear in mind that none of the gospels was written at the time of Christ (threy range between 50 and 400 years later) and so are not first hand accounts (and besides, medical misdiagnoses and creative catering do not prove you are the son of God.

3. On the subject of historical references: to quote someone else (I forget who), 'the existence of superman comics does not prove the existence of superman'.
 
2005-09-04 11:55:21 AM  
2005-09-04 03:23:20 AM sixdays


At least Christians bring a fairly unified message.

Then why do we have Catholics, Episcopalians, Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Baptists, Anabaptists, Assyrians, Oriental Orthodox, Evangelicals, Charismatics, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Amish, Arminian, British Israelism, Christian Identity, Mormons, Mennonites, Anglican, Dutch Reformed, Moravians, Congregationalism, Swedenborgians, Brethren, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and so on?


Nor, for that matter, do I see any contradiction between what I wrote and what Dimensio wrote. What textbook did you see this in? Was it published some time after 1900?


I dont know if im supposed to high five you or argue.

Then I have accomplished my heart's desire. Now I can use you as a reference in my application to the Confuse-a-Cat Corporation.


my comp doesnt read sarcasticon.

The sarcasticon began as the simple tilda symbol ~ , meant to mark sentences or passages that were intended to be taken as sarcasm. I tried to popularize it, since there is so much sarcasm on fark, but nobody seemed to care much, preferring to simply misinterpret things in the usual way. So I took to enclosing it first in quoation marks, as "~", and nowadays in parentheses, as (~). I also use an emoticon that is meant to indicate I am smiling, but in a sardonic way, ;~)

So, in my use of this symbol, and its meaning and interpretation, you can see, up close and personal, evidence of evolution in action. ;~)
 
2005-09-04 12:36:57 PM  
FSM game http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/263806
 
2005-09-04 01:22:28 PM  
Dimensio


How dare you say that child porn serves to better society?

No one is suggesting this. In typical dishonest creationist fashion, you are responding to clear-cut sarcasm as though it was a serious statement, even though you should know better.

Once again, you make my point for me: creationists are liars.




Dude, are you retarded? Yeah. I called you a child pornographer. Good grief man. Youre not even trying now.



So, first off, cmon here unbelievers. At least Christians bring a fairly unified message. Which is it? I got one friggin genius asking how dare I accuse Haeckel,

Who said that? I don't see any posts to the effect of "how dare you accuse Haeckel." Looks like you're lying again, though this is no shock coming from a creationist.


and then youre telling me of course hes wrong, but thats besides the point. Which is it?

Haeckel was wrong. It was known that he was wrong when he first published his crap. His work has never been part of the body of knowledge of the theory of evolution.


And heres the problem Haeckels drawings are still being used as support of evolution.

And what is the context of these drawings? Be specific.




Another evolutionist lemming a while up scolded me for having the gall to question Haeckel. Scroll up. Im not going to do your homework for you.


My 10th grade bio book (dont worry, I took a pen and wrote Christian responces in the margins, complete with verses. Really just to make people like you guys heads asplode). THATS my problem.

So what's the context of Haeckel's drawings? I already explained what was wrong with them and the context that needs to be in place for a textbook to be pushing his fraudulent work, yet you completely ignored everything that I said. Why? Are facts inconvenient to you?

What am I saying? You're a creationist. Of course facts are inconvenient to you!

So first you lie about responses to your claims about Haeckel, and then you dishonestly ignore the entire substance of my post on Haeckel. Typical creationist dishonesty. What a shock.




Well, since youre so interested in my life, Id be happy to share. In my 10th grade bio class (about six year ago), we had a six week course on evolution. In this course, we looked at many different aspects of evolutions, including Haeckels drawings. Our book took the cleverly neutral stance of asking Haeckels drawings show. (yadda yadda yadda), how does this help to prove evolution? Am I wrong to be offended by this? The text book was from the mid nineties. Seeing as how we both agree that he was disproved long, long ago, am I incorrect to think this is irresponsible?



Darwinism has issues.

So you assert. And the "issues" that you present turn out to be nothing more than the usual creationist canards.




Stop it. Im trying to have a real conversation.



(insert random ranting and raving)...

Hmmm... now thats curious. Does evolution pass the test? Can it be observed?

Yes


No. Adaptation, sure. Evolution, by definition, cannot.

False. Evolution has been observed. You are attempting to dishonestly redefine evolution.




Really? Evolve something for me. Its my understanding that evolution takes millions of years. Darwin himself said that sudden radical changes are impossible. By very definition, its not something we can watch happen. How about instead of flipping out calling me a creationist liar, actually add something to the discourse.
Can it be repeated? Of course it can! Why, just the other day, I dropped a nine volt battery into a bowl of primordial oozes and I evolved a monkey!

Dishonest creationist tactic #623: create a strawman characterization of the theory of evolution that is nothing like the actual theory and then attack the strawman, pretending to be making a profound point.




Dictionary.com

Its a wonderful site. Go there and look around. Let me know when you get to HYPERBOLE.

I dont know how much more clearly I can say it I AGREE THAT EVLOUTION SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS!!! Ive always been told that science advances because it encourages constant refining, constant questioning of accepted notions, constant perfecting, because thats how we get closer to the truth. It would hurt nothing to simply address concerns. One day out of a six week course. One day of thirty. Would that really hurt? As a Christian, what kind of faith would I have if I absolutely refused to listen to any thoughts opposed to it? It would be weak and unfounded. I have absolutely no doubts as to the facts on god, so when I teach young kids about it (I volunteer as a bible camp counselor), should I ignore and hide all the evidence against it? It would be absurd to, moreover, it would show that our argument is weak and undefendable. Evolution is obviously important to current biology and should be taught. Lets just use good learning stratergies.
 
2005-09-04 01:37:26 PM  
Based on the evidence of the postings here, I've developed a theory that sixdays and other Creationists post based on a combination of ignorance, stupidity, and evil masquerading as earnestness. I predict that any future posts will reflect these three qualities. I think it's a pretty good theory. Let's see if it holds up, and argue about exactly what the mix of those three qualities actually is, and if there's a major quality missing or a better label for one of them (e.g., dishonesty?). There might be a sociology journal like The Journal of Blinding Religous Fanaticism we can publish in.
 
2005-09-04 01:39:41 PM  
sixdays:

Another evolutionist lemming a while up scolded me for having the gall to question Haeckel. Scroll up. Im not going to do your homework for you.

Another unwashed rube. Do you even think for yourself or did you just sign over your bank account to the preacher?
 
2005-09-04 03:03:44 PM  
god, stories like these make me homesick :(

/misses Utah
//lives in Spokane
 
2005-09-04 04:03:54 PM  
Dude, are you retarded?

No, but I'm beginning to think that you are.


Yeah. I called you a child pornographer. Good grief man. Youre not even trying now.

I never accused you of calling me a child pornographer, so your sarcasm is not only totally unwarranted, but also indicative of you being a total moron or an outright liar. Which is it?


Another evolutionist lemming a while up scolded me for having the gall to question Haeckel.

No, no one "scolded you" for "having the gall to question Haeckel". Someone called you out on dredging up something so old, but no one acted as though Haeckel's work was beyond question. You are, once again, lying like a typical creationist.


Well, since youre so interested in my life, Id be happy to share. In my 10th grade bio class (about six year ago), we had a six week course on evolution. In this course, we looked at many different aspects of evolutions, including Haeckels drawings.

And do you even know what Haeckel was trying to "prove" with his drawings?

If so, explain. If you get it wrong, it will not only prove that you're an idiot for bringing up a topic that you don't fully understand but it will also demonstrate that you can't even read.


Our book took the cleverly neutral stance of asking Haeckels drawings show. (yadda yadda yadda), how does this help to prove evolution?

This is a recounting of context so vague I can't even decipher it. Do you have a reference for the book, or will you just dishonestly tell me to look it up myself because you're too much of a liar to support your arguments with facts?


Am I wrong to be offended by this? The text book was from the mid nineties. Seeing as how we both agree that he was disproved long, long ago, am I incorrect to think this is irresponsible?

I don't know. I don't know the context in which the drawings were presented. You're not even providing a reference to the book, and your attempt to provide context was sloppy and incoherent.


Dictionary.com

Its a wonderful site. Go there and look around. Let me know when you get to HYPERBOLE.


Stop making excuses. You presented a strawman representation of the theory of evolution and then mocked your strawman. You weren't making a point, you were just howling like a moron.


I dont know how much more clearly I can say it I AGREE THAT EVLOUTION SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS!!!


Yet you still feel content to lie about the theory.

For example, I asked how Haeckel's fraud is a "problem" with the theory of evolution. I asked what challenge it presents to the theory. Thus far you've completely dodged the issue. I understand why, though, because it's quite clear that you didn't have a point to make when bringing it up in the first place. Creationists love actual incidents of fraud; they blow the incidents out of proportion and then dishonestly claim that the acts of fraud are somehow "proof" that a theory is flawed, even if the theory doesn't reference the fraud in any way.


Ive always been told that science advances because it encourages constant refining, constant questioning of accepted notions, constant perfecting, because thats how we get closer to the truth.


It does. Bringing up a fraud from the 1860s and claiming -- without references -- that it's still being taught today, even though no serious biologst considers the fraudulent work in his or her research does not accomplish that goal.


It would hurt nothing to simply address concerns.

Fine. Haeckel's drawings were frauds. They prove nothing, but since no serious biologist uses them as evidence for the theory of evolution, that's rather meaningless. The Cambrian Explosion has been explained rather well, though some biologists disagree on specifics.

What more are we going to throw in? And while we're at it, why not also throw in "problems" with relativity theory for physics classrooms and problems with atomic theory for chemistry?
 
2005-09-04 05:22:28 PM  
If SETI found god it would have achieved it goal, right?
 
2005-09-04 07:03:30 PM  
sixdays
Funny you should mention it, I did take Philospohy at College.
and I failed miserably, so you might be right.

I also took Geology though, scored a A, and my Palenontology paper was publised by Ed-excel (it might have been AQA, can't remmeber) as an example of a top grade.
 
2005-09-04 07:07:48 PM  
sixdays has obviousy read this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp

or this,

http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm

or maybe this,

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/EvolutionFraudExposed.html

Note: I looked into this a bit, and like sixdays, none of the aforementioned articles will actually help you find ANY of these "fifty or more" biology texts that use Haeckel's drawings. I am still waiting for proof that they exist, and/or are in actual use today, or even ten years ago. (Taps foot impatiently, waiting, waiting, waiting.)
 
2005-09-04 07:39:48 PM  
Well sixdays

1. Evolution is visible in the marine fossil rechord. It is fact.

but you can read about that for yourself. However, I would like to draw your attention to your own 'theory'.

Take Haeckel's drawings. You've been refuted a billion times on this irrelevant issue that has nothing to to do with the vlaidity of evolutionary theory. So now please apply the same scrutiny to your own 'facts'.

Should I trust my 1611 King James, or the 1871 revision, or the later spelling revisions of that? Should I accept the word 'timbrels' or 'tabrets' as the true Word of God in II Samuel? Should I read the books following Deutronomy that were excluded form many later versions? Which of the six aposltes tells the real story of the Crucifixtion? There are six slightly different ones to choose from.

And it's true, nobody's seen evolution, really, have they? (ignore fruit flies dog breeding, the huge number fo marine examples, genetics and inhertience).

So to treat your view with the same scrutiny, please show me the Noah's Ark. I won't belive it untill I have seen it. The real one, not a copy either.

/Controversy!
 
2005-09-04 07:49:20 PM  
Here is a bit of a followup on sixday's claims:

From a creationist site:

Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were
subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and
reproduced widely in English language biology texts.

Despite a hundred years in which many scientists have documented Haeckel's fraud, there are currently 50 or more science textbooks that have reproduced his drawings and continue to teach his ideas. Why? Textbook publishers simply copy from previous textbooks! Once wrong information
appears in textbooks it can easily become a permanent fixture as one publisher borrows and repeats what another has done.



So where are these textbooks? Give me names, ISBN numbers, school districts in which they are being used. I have found this info on several creationist web sites, with no mention of the actual texts, which leads me to think that creationists simply copy from other creationists! I am willing to admit I could be wrong -- please enlighten me.

The most honest site so far I have found says this:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1956/JASA3-56Knoblock.html

Haeckel summed up this doctrine in the familiar phrases, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". These sayings have adorned Biology texts for the better part of the first half of this century, showing how the notions of ancestry, heredity, and development were united in a three-fold manner: the ancestors created, heredity transmitted, and development repeated, the adult characteristics of past organisms.

"The better part of the first half of this century" (meaning, of course, the last century), means at least 26 years. Wonderful. So how did sixpack get such a text in his 10th grade biology course only ten years ago? I am beginning to smell a tiny whiff or a rat here.
 
2005-09-04 10:35:20 PM  
I finally found actual names of some of these scandalous texts that refer to Haeckel's theories. The only one currently in use anywhere is here: McMaster University. From their own web site:

Historically, McMaster University is the outgrowth of educational work initiated by Baptists in central Canada as early as the 1830's. Named after Senator William McMaster (1811-1887), who bequeathed substantial funds to endow "a Christian school of learning",

The remainder of these "texts" are all over thirty years old, with no citations as to where they are being used, now or ever.

I am now officially calling sixdays a liar, until/unless he/she can provide a textbook name and the high school that used it in the time he/she took 10th grade biology. I am perfectly willing to admit I am wrong, if only sixgun can provide these bona fides.

If not, I shall taunt him/her without mercy.
 
2005-09-04 11:31:51 PM  
sixdays
I personally believe that even a cursory examination of the evidence shows that evloution requires just as much faith as creationism.

Not really. There is more physical evidence for evolution than there is for creationism, so it requires less faith.

You are correct that any belief requires elements of faith. I have faith that my senses are reliable to within a certain degree for example, and that I am able to make logical, rational decisions.

Belief in creationism requires more faith than evolution because it requires faith in the existance of god, in the reliability of religious writings, etc.

I cant think of any other scientific THEORY which is taken and defended as FACT and freakin refuses to even listen to any discussion about it.

Theories don't refuse to listen or discuss anything. Some people will treat it like their religion because they treat science as their religion. Any true scientist will have just as much distain for these people as for any other closed-minded 'true believer'. Science is about making, discovering and correcting mistakes, and, more importantly, figuring out what kinds of behaviours lead to mistakes, and figuring out how to avoid that kind of behaviour.

spelunking_defenestrator


I want enforcement to be hard, like Ron Jeremy's pecker

Ron Jeremy's pecker, which he says is about 10 inches long, is soft. In an HBO special about him one of his.. uh, coworkers said that its 'squishy', and that is why it doesn't hurt, even though it is so large.


Anagrammer

An Atheist believes that the question has been settled, and that the answer is that there are no gods.
An Agnostic believes that the question is still up in the air.

Not quite. Atheists are divided into two major groups, 'strong' and 'weak'. Strong atheists make a 'strong' claim, that is, they claim to know that gods do not or cannot exist. This is a positive claim that requires just as much proof as the positive claim that gods do exist. Weak atheists don't claim that gods don't exist, they simply lack a belief that gods exist.

Agnostics claim either that they do not have, or cannot have the knowledge required to decide the question.

A weak atheist can also be an agnostic (that happens to be my position).


Plenty of people have now said "A god exists", or "Gods exist". Yet, no two people have ever agreed upon what part of reality this concept of god(s) is supposed to compare to, how it's supposed to compare, or given any consistent definition of what these god(s) are supposed to be.

I could treat these arbitrary assertions of gods as true, but that would mean making myself a sucker. I could treat them as false, but I would be judging them without evidence.

The only other possibility is the assertion of the god-concept is made without definition or evidence, and is therefore meaningless.

In short, the question has never properly been asked.

Before gods were ever mentioned to me, I wasn't a theist, an atheist or an agnostic. Those words didn't mean anything to me. They still don't.


Regardless of your knowledge of the meaning of the words, your beliefs can still be described using them (or related words, depending on your precise beliefs).

It sounds to me like you are a weak atheistic agnostic. That is, you don't have a belief that gods exist and you don't believe that we have the knowledge necessary to answer (or even ask) the proper question.
 
2005-09-04 11:36:22 PM  
oh, and in my experiance, weak atheistic agnostics tend to also be rationalists, reject organized religion, but are sometimes spiritual.
 
2005-09-04 11:50:32 PM  
everest

oh, and in my experiance, weak atheistic agnostics tend to also be rationalists, reject organized religion, but are sometimes spiritual.

I resemble those remarks, and I am ready to come out swinging. Call me weak, will ya?

/Just passing time, waiting for sixdays to prove he/she is not a liar.
 
2005-09-09 11:28:34 AM  
(Note: I also posted this in thread #1658605, but it's also relevant here)
Evoution CAN be proven and CAN be seen in action! It is a slow process, but over the course of 15 years (in one study I read), scientists took one large colony of bacteria and spread it into 8 'jars' with various nutrients and poisons within each (and of course, kept the original as a control).

They ended up with 9 distict species at the end of the trial, many unable to cohabitate and some had even evolved to eat the 'poisons'!

Too slow? Look up the Avida program- it's a digital demonstration of evolution, that does basically the same thing but in 'American attention span' times.

Basically, it generates a species of digial life forms that perform basic operations (storing numbers, adding numbers, etc). If they do what the 'target' objective is, such as add two numbers, they multiply rapidly with occasional random mutations, if they kinda do what is needed, say take in two numbers and store them, they still multiply but slowly.

Some findings:
1) When made sexual with dominant and recessive genes, they found evolution to go much faster and the species was less likely to die out- but almost all 'cells' had crippling DNA that was fatal if expressed.
2) If resources were plentiful, only one species emerged at the end. If rare, they got diversity.
3) Very Interesting: They decided to attempt to stop the evolution in one test- they would periodically cull off all the 'cells' that performed well. At the end of the test, they found the 'cells' were still doing what the target function asked. How?

They had evolved a way to see the death test coming, and play dead (give bad answers) to avoid the icy scythe of death. How spooky is that?
 
Displayed 45 of 445 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | 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