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.

(Mercury News)   FSM takes a hit when science supporters win majority on Kansas School board   (mercurynews.com) divider line 593
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

12707 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Aug 2006 at 8:22 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



593 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-08-02 09:50:50 AM  
Murkanen

Sh0velman

...that was trolling right? Please tell me that was trolling.


Which one? The one where I talked about the asinine nature of the discussion at hand (due to the subject)? or the one where I talked about going back in time to play double dare with the dinosaurs? (i loved that show)

Yes trolling on the second, first one was serious, but serious in that i was just trolling... That help any?
 
2006-08-02 09:51:05 AM  
muninsfire: Tell me about it....I'd be a little jealous of King Solomon for his bathtub, if I didn't remember he had to deal with a thousand concubines hanging around him all the time.


Interesting historical side note. To avoid this synch between harem members, the women were kept segregated into groups so that a group of women one day was never the same the next day. This kept most of the women's cycles varied enough that there was enough poontang to go around for the day.

There was lots and lots of lesbian sex going on in those harems as well.
 
2006-08-02 09:52:09 AM  
muninsfire: EVERYONE knows that Jews never pay retail for *anything*.

I'd pay retail for Natalie Port.. I'd.. yeah... I'd.

Ok, I wouldn't, but would think really hard about it.

/I tried
 
2006-08-02 09:53:19 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf: There was lots and lots of lesbian sex going on in those harems as well.

nwps.ws
 
2006-08-02 09:53:26 AM  
Tatsuma: he wasn't the Ron Jeremy of the Middle-East,

Maybe not, but I'm sure he's the patron of every pimp out there. ;-P

Shlomo was also punished for this, and some of his wives still worshipped idols secretely so it tainted his name

Nu, as though a thousand concubines wasn't punishment enough?

//See, the thing is, girls tend to synchronize--so a thousand concubines on the rag at the same time?
///This must be where they got the idea for CHRISTIAN HELL from.

yikes. Never saw it that way


Just imagine the bloodbath.

And that's BEFORE the catfights.

austinosphere: You haven't considered the alternative any more than creationists have considered the alternative you suggest.

That's the problem with fundamentalists and others who cleave to their dogma--they may *say* they've looked at the other side and found it wanting, but what they're really looking at is their impression of the other side--so they never actually see another point of view, really.
 
2006-08-02 09:53:51 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf: There was lots and lots of lesbian sex going on in those harems as well.

Interesting halachic sidenote. While homosexuality between males is considered wrong, lesbianism is considered really not that bad.
 
2006-08-02 09:54:03 AM  
The Homer Tax
theorellior: For a Jew bent on world domination, you're all right.

Aren't they all?


Yeah, most of them. But in rare instances I've met one or two that didn't seem right at all.
 
2006-08-02 09:54:30 AM  
Any rational christian/jew should buy this book

*COUGHredundantCOUGH*

/too late in the thread?
//oh well
 
2006-08-02 09:55:25 AM  
Mr. Clarence Butterworth: Evolution IS NOT the study of the origins of the universe, but thanks for your dishonest hyperbole, anyway.

I think I might not have been as clear as I could have been when making my point. Which is this - many Christians have no difficulty incorporating scientific discoveries into their faith because they view it as the manifestation of God's work. Genesis (which deals with the origins of the universe as well as the emergence of life) is viewed metaphorically by those Christians (myself included), but the central article of faith remains the same for both non-creationist and creationist Christians: i.e. God is responsible for existence.
 
2006-08-02 09:55:36 AM  
thisispete
Well it's not so much a separation, rather a growing appreciation for the subtleties of God's work. When the best hypothesis we can offer for the origins of the universe is that in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded, it's not so hard to asribe that to the divine.

I don't think there is an inherent contradiction in believing in something beyond our comprehension and ability to perceive actually exists despite any evidence for it, I just have a hard time with any scientist buying the rest of the crap these holy books have in them.
 
2006-08-02 09:55:47 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf: Interesting historical side note. To avoid this synch between harem members, the women were kept segregated into groups so that a group of women one day was never the same the next day. This kept most of the women's cycles varied enough that there was enough poontang to go around for the day.

Oh, so THAT's how they did it. That makes sense.

There was lots and lots of lesbian sex going on in those harems as well.

....mmmmm......Pity the poor eunuchs....all that fun to watch, and they never get to participate. Perhaps that's why they're always depicted as surly...I'd be surly, too.

Tatsuma: I'd pay retail for Natalie Port.. I'd.. yeah... I'd.

Ok, I wouldn't, but would think really hard about it.

/I tried


Nice try. But you'd probably pay retail *price*--if they added in some hot grits for free, ne?
 
2006-08-02 09:56:15 AM  
Let's get on thing here strait, evolution in terms of mutations, adaptation, and natural selection has been proven through direct observation. Scientists have actually witnesses and recoded these events...

What more evidence do you need?

It seams clear that the only reason religious believers refuse to accept this blatantly obvious fact is because (either consciously or unconsciously) they know accepting this would be in direct contradiction with there "religion" or "faith".

The fact that normally rational people are willing to totally discount a proven fact in favor for a un-proven believe, even with the evidence staring them in the face, is disturbing to say the least...
 
2006-08-02 09:56:16 AM  
mtman900

Yeah I see that now, sorry :P

PeopleFirst

Macroevolution and microevolution are the exact same thing. It came about when evolution was shown to be undeniably true, that is to say that animals do change to adapt to their environment. When this happened creationists and their ilk "moved the goalposts" and said "Fine, it happens, but can you prove macroevolution happens?" despite the fact that the only difference involved between "micro" and "macro" is time. A good "transitional evolution" (my word for it, doubt it's the technical term) are the elephants in Africa which are growing smaller tusks because the ivory poachers have made it into a survival trait (small tusks means they won't shoot you).
 
2006-08-02 09:57:48 AM  
Tatsuma: Interesting halachic sidenote. While homosexuality between males is considered wrong, lesbianism is considered really not that bad.

Well, the wisest man to ever live tacitly endorsed it...
 
2006-08-02 09:58:08 AM  
While it is true that women living together tend to get on the same schedule, I saw that lesbian women living together actually do not sync up.

So, let us all hope for Solomon's sake that they were lezzing it up on the side of the bath tub.
 
2006-08-02 09:58:55 AM  
muninsfire
"I know this one guy--Engineer of some kind, works at a well-known college. He's a creationist.

However, he doesn't work in the biology department; he works in the computer science department, where there's no conflicts with his beliefs."

Do you know any biologist?

I work at one of the top research universities/hospitals in the country. I'm not a scientist but I know a lot of them. My wife is a biochemist. She doesn't accept the theory of evolution. We have tons of Christian friends who are scientists and doctors.

To say there are few biologist who believe in creation is just not true. There's probably a pretty large percentage on both sides.
 
2006-08-02 09:59:35 AM  
Mekongcola: It seams clear that the only reason religious believers refuse to accept this blatantly obvious fact is because (either consciously or unconsciously) they know accepting this would be in direct contradiction with there "religion" or "faith".

Not know--perceive.

It actually doesn't contradict at all, really. What it contradicts is their perception of the divine as having certain human qualities--and limitations.

I like pointing that out to creationists from time to time, how they're putting limits on what G-d can and can't do, and are thus comitting a sin.

They never do respond to that....usually, they shut right up.
 
2006-08-02 09:59:51 AM  
*COUGHredundantCOUGH*

Being that faith is, by definition, irrational... I'm going to have to go against you on that one.
 
2006-08-02 10:00:12 AM  
muninsfire

I meant the formation of life as in the broad picture from the start until now.

As for the faith part, yes we can't prove faith in with the scientific method, but I think you could have a testable model that makes predictions based upon the idea of God existing. It wouldn't end science, it would just mean we discover what God has done. Methodilogical naturalism would continue but some of the questions might change. I think it would be like Einsteins theory of relativity. Science didn't stop when he came out with it, the questions just changed.

The theory of relativity points to the universe having a beginning. I'm with Antony Flew who thinks that there is something (God) that made it begin. It is very logical to come to that conclusion, but once you think that it doesn't mean you stop looking for how the universe works.

I'm not a young earther, I'm a progressive creationist.
 
2006-08-02 10:00:13 AM  
It's people like you guys that a second world flood is coming!!

I hope you all remember this when you drown. Fortunately I am building a boat and getting two of every species on it.
It's hard getting the lions and deer to play nice though.
 
2006-08-02 10:00:24 AM  
Mr. Clarence Butterworth
Light is a particle, which can behave as a wave.


Simply because Im not gonna word this correctly(and Im feeling lazy at this point) here is a little cut and paste about that.


Wave-Particle Duality

So what's the answer? Is light a wave, or is light a flow of particles? Well, the bottom line is that it's neither one. Light is �are you ready?� a "quantum vector field." That phrase doesn't give you much of a mental picture, does it? I actually kind of know what a quantum vector field is, and it doesn't give me any mental picture. The fact is that the true nature of light defies mental picturing, because it's not quite like anything we can lay our hands on. Under certain conditions, such as when we shine it through narrow slits and look at the result, it behaves as only a wave can. Under other conditions, such as when we shine it on a metal and examine the spray of electrons that comes off, light behaves as only particles can. This multiple personality of light is referred to as "wave-particle duality." Light behaves as a wave, or as particles, depending on what we do with it, and what we try to observe. And it's wave-particle duality that lies at the heart of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.



Again....so its both.....depending on what we do with it, so its actually neither all the time.
It can behave as a wave, and it can behave a particle, its something always in flux. It's not one behaving as the other.
 
2006-08-02 10:00:37 AM  
I saw that lesbian women living together actually do not sync up.


There has to be an available and fertile male to compete for, lesbians are obviously not biologically doing this, hence, no synched menstruation.
 
2006-08-02 10:01:15 AM  
Before people start to spew self-righteous banter about how it can be proven and blah blah blah. Until we have faster-than-light capability and can unequivically(sp?) prove that its true, its a theory... in the same way until we have a time machine to jump back in time X number of millions of years to check for the puddle of goo we all crawled out of, its a THEORY.

What follows is a definition. Please note the difference between 1 and 6. When I say "Theory of evolution" I'm using definition number one. Whenever somebody uses the negative "It's only a THEORY of evolution" they are trying to mince words by using number six. I'd just like to say KNOCK IT OFF, it just makes you sound like an asshat.

the·o·ry
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
 
2006-08-02 10:02:32 AM  
Murkanen

Not to mention that evidence for speciation exists. Doubters can look up Triticale.

The argument against evolution rests on the fallacy that because a theory can't explain everything, it can't explain anything. Holes in the fossil record are not evidence against the mountains of fossil evidence already recovered.
 
2006-08-02 10:02:32 AM  
but I think you could have a testable model that makes predictions based upon the idea of God existing.

Would this testable model be anything like, say, whether or not prayer helps in the recovery of ill patients?

/a little bit of snark
 
2006-08-02 10:02:43 AM  
rickot1: Do you know any biologist?

A few. Do entymologists count, also? Then I can add another one....

I work at one of the top research universities/hospitals in the country. I'm not a scientist but I know a lot of them. My wife is a biochemist. She doesn't accept the theory of evolution. We have tons of Christian friends who are scientists and doctors.

That's more chemistry that happens to come from things that happen to be alive than anything else, though--"Organic chemistry is the study of carbon compounds. Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that wiggle". I find it hard to believe that, say, a zoologist, or anyone else who has to work around the obvious evidence of evolution on a daily basis, can *not* know that evolution happens.

To say there are few biologist who believe in creation is just not true. There's probably a pretty large percentage on both sides.

I think your sample may be slightly skewed.
 
2006-08-02 10:03:32 AM  
I know where This is headed: wayne.nervestaple.com You've been warned.
 
2006-08-02 10:03:45 AM  
Regarding the Francis Collins book, here's what P.Z. Myers has to say about his arguments for the existence of God:
He claims that "faith is the most rational of all choices," and gives a peculiar demonstration that I'll paraphrase. Imagine a table top represents the sum of all human knowledge. Now mark off the part that represents what you know-it would be a tiny circle. Now ask, where is the knowledge of the existence of god. Isn't it irrational to assume that it falls within your tiny circle, when there is so much you don't know?

This isn't just an argument from ignorance, it's an argument for ignorance. You can argue for anything with that excuse: Bigfoot, UFOs, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Jesus, green bug-eyed Martians, that PZ Myers has a completely different genome from what Francis Collins sequenced. What he is doing is playing a disingenuous game, pushing his god question off into the gaps in what we know, and at the same time implying that this all-powerful cosmic being that created and maintains the universe does not in any way impinge on our teeny-tiny circle of knowledge. If it's not dishonest, it's stupid.

Then, in his next breath, he completely undercuts his own argument. He claims that within our circle of knowledge is evidence of the existence of some supernatural being. So, he wants to argue away the atheists by saying they can't know, and the evidence is out there somewhere...just not in our circle. At the same time, though, he says that that knowledge is here in our circle, and that's why he believes. Again, though, he doesn't say what this evidence is. He's a scientist, trust him.


Beleif in the supernatural is delusion, straight up. There is no convincing argument for the existence of immaterial, spiritual beings of any kind: gods, demons, elves, vampires, or leprechauns. In fact any argument you can make for God will sound the same if you insert "leprechauns" for "God."

Who created the world? Leprechauns.
Why are there rainbows? To hide their pots of gold.

And on the night that Lucky the Leprechaun was to be betrayed, he said to his disciples, "Take this bowl of Lucky Charms and eat, for this is my body given up for you"
 
2006-08-02 10:04:25 AM  
What is faith and why is it important?

Clearly God intended his existence to be able to be proven. He wanted scientists to be able to prove his existence with a couple experiments, and then we'd all have to believe.

Surely he didn't want to see what we'd do if we were left on our own to find out what we would do if we had our own decisions to make, which path we'd naturally take.
 
2006-08-02 10:04:44 AM  
Murkanen

My problem with the "time" argument is the same that naturalists have with the "God dun it" argument. Time doesn't mean life changes. Sharks have been the same for a long time. So "time" itself isn't enough. There has to be outside forces coupled with time. That being said I think the fossil record better supports punctuated equilibrium, but no mechanism has been found yet.
 
2006-08-02 10:06:14 AM  
not
 
2006-08-02 10:06:40 AM  
PeopleFirst: I think you could have a testable model that makes predictions based upon the idea of God existing.

No, you can't. By definition.

Belief in G-d is faith. If you prove something, one way or another, you negate faith--and thus you negate your belief. If, somehow, you were to prove that G-d exists, you would no longer believe in him--you *could* no longer believe in him, because faith relies upon no proof being available.

Furthermore, might I remind you of the words of Jesus to Thomas the apostle: [ Paraphrased ] Blessed are you who have seen, but even more blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe.

Dr. Frisbee: It's people like you guys that a second world flood is coming!!

Read your bible again. G-d promised it wouldn't be a flood again.

Mr. Clarence Butterworth: There has to be an available and fertile male to compete for, lesbians are obviously not biologically doing this, hence, no synched menstruation.

Now, there's an interesting thought. In a harem situation, *is* there a male to compete for?
 
2006-08-02 10:06:53 AM  
2006-08-02 09:56:15 AM Mekongcola
"Let's get on thing here strait, evolution in terms of mutations, adaptation, and natural selection has been proven through direct observation. Scientists have actually witnesses and recoded these events...

What more evidence do you need?"

It would take someone completely stupid to suggest that a species can't adapt. Yes, we all know about Darwin's finches and how they develeoped different beaks based on their diet. No one in their right mind (and I'll admit some religious folks aren't) would say that every speices has remained unchanged across time. This inter-species evolution is microevolution.

What most religious people object to is the suggestion that those finches came from lizards which came from fish etc., the macroevolution theory that we all share a common ancestor and came from some primordial ooze. The "from goo to you by way of the zoo" theory, I call it. This is something that cannot be observed as easily as microevolution, so it's the more contentious aspect of evolutionary theory. Just thought I'd clear that up.
 
2006-08-02 10:07:32 AM  
BorgiaGinz: Who created the world? Leprechauns.
Why are there rainbows? To hide their pots of gold.

And on the night that Lucky the Leprechaun was to be betrayed, he said to his disciples, "Take this bowl of Lucky Charms and eat, for this is my body given up for you"



The Silly Rabbit works to trick us from our breakfast cereals. Beware the seduction of the Silly Rabbit.
 
2006-08-02 10:08:02 AM  
austinosphere: Clearly God intended his existence to be able to be proven. He wanted scientists to be able to prove his existence with a couple experiments, and then we'd all have to believe.

Absolutely wrong.

G-d can *not* have his existence proven, because proof negates faith--faith is defined as believing *without* proof.

Please, read your own damn theology!
 
2006-08-02 10:08:13 AM  
And on the night that Lucky the Leprechaun was to be betrayed, he said to his disciples, "Take this bowl of Lucky Charms and eat, for this is my body given up for you"

haha, thank you for that, I enjoyed it.

austinosphere

Ask a child how Santa can get around the entire world in one night and they'll tell you anything from slowing the world down to being really, really fast.

Show me a person of faith questioned about their faith, and I will show you an intellectual contortionist.
 
2006-08-02 10:08:50 AM  
Please, read your own damn theology!

He was being sarcastic :)
 
2006-08-02 10:10:28 AM  
Yeah something that Mohhomad just touched on that I think needs to be stated a bit more plainly.

The reason the term theory is used in science is very simply that it is known and assumed by the people that have created these theories that there may be mistakes, or that the theory itself may possibly be incomplete. For that reason they leave it open to possible correction in the future by declaring it a THEORY .
 
2006-08-02 10:10:37 AM  
PC LOAD LETTER: The Silly Rabbit works to trick us from our breakfast cereals. Beware the seduction of the Silly Rabbit.

Hrmm. And Breakfast Cereals are mentioned in the Book of Armaments. And in the same movie, they are told not to go to Camelot because it is a silly place.

I think I see a pattern forming...
 
2006-08-02 10:11:14 AM  
muninsfire

I think we are talking past each other. The model wouldn't test whether God existed. That would be an article of faith based upon reason. The model would then test the natural world.

Naturalism hasn't proved God doesn't exist. In fact their is no proof test for naturalism just like their is no proof test for God. It is just an assumption normally along the lines of pragmatism. It is simply Pascals wager in reverse. "I don't know if there is a God or not, but it is more helpful for me not to believe in one." That isn't seeking truth, it is being utilitarian.
 
2006-08-02 10:11:26 AM  
mtman900: He was being sarcastic :)

Oh, whoops. My sarcasm meter is out of caffeine.
 
2006-08-02 10:12:09 AM  
My penis is evolving.
 
2006-08-02 10:13:19 AM  
RussianPooper

I was going to mention that, but I didn't think it fit in well with where I was going to stick it (parenthesied in the "Now prove macroevolution" quote).

As for the person wondering where Bevets is, he's probably licking his wounds from yesterdays creationism museum thread. He was getting a little pouty towards the end because people were just brushing him off due to his canned and predictable responses.

rikot1

Calling a biochemist a biologist is on par with calling a park ranger an army ranger.

/or some other analogy that makes sense to the rest of you
 
2006-08-02 10:14:24 AM  
mtman900
Being that faith is, by definition, irrational... I'm going to have to go against you on that one.

Actually, I think by definition faith is a-rational (rather than irrational). This is why, IMHO, faith is predominantly concerned with ethical behaviour - right and wrong cannot be determined through formal reason alone. (Otherwise, you could 'prove' whether abortion was right or wrong, for example)

I don't consider it 'irrational' because that has connotations of deluded or corrupted thinking, which faith is not. Really.

Oh, muninsfire, you say wise things regarding faith and reason. Kudos.
 
2006-08-02 10:14:24 AM  
PeopleFirst: I think we are talking past each other. The model wouldn't test whether God existed. That would be an article of faith based upon reason. The model would then test the natural world.

How would there be any difference in the model whether G-d existed or didn't exist? If there's no way to know, why make any presumptions as to the existence or non-existence when the model will be the same both ways?

Furthermore, if the model required the existence of the divine in order to function, would it not, if it worked perfectly, prove the existence of the divine? Or, if it didn't work, disprove the existence of the divine?

Any use of a model in which G-d is inserted into the math must necessarily test his existence.

Your belief or disbelieve in a divine force should have no effect on math and measurements.
 
2006-08-02 10:14:32 AM  
muninsfire

Now, there's an interesting thought. In a harem situation, *is* there a male to compete for?

Oh yeah...consciously or not, concubines wanted to bear a child from the King or whatever. In those days, to get that old and tough to be a king, you were most likely a virile and strong man, which if psychology has taught us anything, is what females want to pass on to their offspring. Strength, intelligence and beauty are all desirable traits, just like it is today.
 
2006-08-02 10:15:21 AM  
DonutsForEver: Oh, muninsfire, you say wise things regarding faith and reason. Kudos.

Thank you. I don't pretend to know everything, but I try to show other sides of the story.
 
2006-08-02 10:15:59 AM  
scraping-fetus-off-the-wheel: My penis is evolving.


I'll warn the neighbors Cats.
 
2006-08-02 10:16:20 AM  
PeopleFirst
Sharks have been the same for a long time. So "time" itself isn't enough. There has to be outside forces coupled with time.

Yes, that's why natural selection is dependent on the environment.

That being said I think the fossil record better supports punctuated equilibrium, but no mechanism has been found yet.

That's simply not true. You seem to be unfamiliar with how evolution works. I suggest reading up on "natural selection" and "descent with modification" for starters.
 
2006-08-02 10:16:51 AM  
Mr. Clarence Butterworth: Oh yeah...consciously or not, concubines wanted to bear a child from the King or whatever.

Hrm. It sounds like Harem Dynamics would be a very interesting field of study....
 
Displayed 50 of 593 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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