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.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Florida schools to add the phrase "scientific theory of" before evolution, the Big Bang, and the Female Orgasm   (blogs.orlandosentinel.com) divider line 760
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

6433 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2008 at 8:38 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



760 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-15 09:24:03 PM
ErinPac: When you were in grade school they also probably taught you what a scientific theory actually was.... as opposed to the word used commonly that's closer to 'hypothesis' or 'whatever-happens-to-spew-out-my-mouth-today'.

What, they don't teach the scientific method anymore?
 
2008-02-15 09:24:36 PM
philwz: ""The Portland Atheist", I bet that is a treasure trove of unbiased information."

The link to the FMRI information resource is RIGHT THERE on the page. But you didn't look. You looked only for an excuse to dismiss it out of hand, then you closed the window.

FYI, that's my blog. I linked you because I happened to remember that I addressed this specific question there, and I didn't want to waste time digging up an explanation on google.

philwz: "Um, anyway yeah they do a good job of examining someone's brain when they say "I feel love." That does not prove that they really love someone. It proves that they are thinking about love."

That's love. Brain activity. There's nothing more to it, you're arguing out of ignorance of cognitive neuroscience.

philwz: "I could probably imagine myself romantically involved with Mr. T and cause those areas of my brain to spike, but it wouldn't make it certain that I feel that way about him.

/Just an example."


That's not how the tests were conducted. You're imagining a hypothetical scenario that allows you to rationalize away data that directly challenges your cherished belief that there's a ghost living inside your brain, driving your body around like a car. You believe this out of ignorance of neuroscience, the same way that a creationist believes what he or she does out of ignorance of evolution.
 
2008-02-15 09:24:52 PM
abb3w: Oooh, I've been hoping a Muslim would show up to take Bevets to task on his premise of Biblical Inerrancy.

Yeah, I bit off a bit more than I could chew in the last thread; been doing a lot of reading to catch myself up on the topic, since my religious backround covered very little of the actual NT.
 
2008-02-15 09:26:05 PM
MiamiBlues We experience love as more than a chemical reaction in the brain

Is there any reason I should believe that?
 
2008-02-15 09:26:17 PM
Confabulat: The Pope believes in evolution.

John Paul II, yes; pope Benny the 16th, perhaps not so much.

The_Religious_Left: Love, compassion, heroism.

No, those can all be tested. Say, by putting you and your Twue Wove in a locked room with a small hole in the ceiling. If I am willing to knowingly drop a live grenade down the hole, I have tested negative for compassion. If you are willing to throw yourself on the grenade to smother the blast, you have tested positive for either Love and Heroism, although determining which becomes difficult. (That's the problem with destructive testing.)

Non-destructive tests are possible, but don't come as quickly to someone with a Mad Science background.

eeedlef: Given a choice between discussing evolution and female orgasms, you are choosing the former.

Sorry, I haven't been able to do much research on the latter of late. Farkettes in the Charlottesville, VA interested in doing something about that are welcome to distract me. =)
 
2008-02-15 09:26:52 PM
Bevets:
Rules of "Science":

Rule #1 God is IRRELEVANT
Rule #2 If God is relevant, see Rule #1
Rule #3 If God might be relevant, see Rule #1

Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.


Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes...

Actually I know atheists that consider themselves agnostic to or even *consider* metaphysical explanations for certain things. Usually you're right though, an atheist is usually a naturalist too, but you mustn't forget atheism is the lack of belief in any deity, one needs no other qualifying belief, just lack of the *one* specific belief. That is its only tenet.
 
2008-02-15 09:27:13 PM
Bevets: This is misleading because it implies evolutionism is supported by science.

By your personal definition of "evolutionism," no, it isn't, necessarily.

Evolution as defined by scientists, however, has overwhelming support from the scientific community and supporting evidences.
 
2008-02-15 09:27:21 PM
Pfft, "female orgasm"...utter bunk! No such thing...
 
2008-02-15 09:27:40 PM
Ya know, I think I'd actually pay good money to see Bevets banninated for life.

He's a troll and he posts the EXACT SAME argument each time, often multiple times in a thread; and multiple times throughout a given day, should there be religion/science discussions.

There have been other people banned for less...why not the B...?
 
2008-02-15 09:28:31 PM
Science Be Praised: There really ought to be a generic cut and paste response we can roll out everytime Bevets adds his repetitive nonsense.

abb3w's response works for me.

As for those idiotic fundies ub TFA (we'll include Bevets here too)... well, the last laugh is going to be on them when, because of their fear of knowledge, they end up evolving back into apes.


/Are we not men?
 
2008-02-15 09:28:43 PM
fudgefactor7 There have been other people banned for less...why not the B...?

He brings in the page hits. Drew should be paying him, not banning him.
 
2008-02-15 09:28:45 PM
nautimike: Pfft, "female orgasm"...utter bunk! No such thing...

oh you poor man.
 
2008-02-15 09:29:32 PM
Bevets: If I wanted quantity, I would paste the text rather than the link. Links allow me to make very concise arguments. Farkers are rarely willing to engage my argument. They would MUCH rather complain about my delivery, engage in ad hominem, or argue about trivial tangents.

Perhaps a different delivery then? If I understand the intention of your quotes, it is to point out that some people take refuge in science to avoid the question of God. They say "science, therefore God doesn't exist," and they try not to think about it. This attempt to convince oneself that with science, God has been defeated or banished is what you refer to as evolutionism, as opposed to evolution, right?

If I got your meaning correctly, then perhaps you could restate it a bit to avoid the problems which you mention.
 
2008-02-15 09:29:48 PM
D'oh

ub=in

/devolving into a guy who doesn't preview
 
2008-02-15 09:30:01 PM
nautimike: Pfft, "female orgasm"...utter bunk! No such thing...

My girlfriend disagrees. BOOYAH!
 
2008-02-15 09:30:35 PM
Man On Pink Corner: MiamiBlues We experience love as more than a chemical reaction in the brain

Is there any reason I should believe that?


It's a question of what level of analysis you are engaged in --- If you are asking for the physiological causes of love, probably love is a very complex chemical reaction in the brain -- This is very important, there's a lot we can do with it, but, pending further analysis, it will give us very little help with, say, one's marriage. Here, we need to engage in a different level of analysis, the analysis of subjective experiences -- one which is probably more tenuous, but also much more helpful.
 
2008-02-15 09:30:57 PM
Ha... when I read Bevets' post up top, I was getting ready to mock him by calling him Bevets, then I saw that it WAS Bevets...

How farked up is it that somebody is about to post deriding you by calling you... well, you?
 
2008-02-15 09:31:01 PM
Zamboro: The_Religious_Left: "I've seen similar MRI images produced for religious experiences. So by that same standard of proof religious experiences and feelings are equally as real of valid as any emotion."

Real in the sense that you're experiencing them. Not real in the sense that they correspond to anything outside of your own brain. That's provable, because we can reproduce religious visions/sensations through external stimulation. That pretty thoroughly demonstrates that it's all in your head.


How do you produce religious sensations? I'm not even sure how you would define religious sensations, other than sort of a belief and attitude toward something.

It seems like you are categorizing all religious thoughts as visions, which would of course could be simulated with an acid trip. But I don't see visions, I don't see ghosts, and I don't see Jesus in toast. I just happen to believe certain things, so how would you make that happen with an experiment?
 
2008-02-15 09:31:17 PM
img104.imageshack.us

img507.imageshack.us

Take your pick.
 
2008-02-15 09:32:02 PM
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?
 
2008-02-15 09:32:16 PM
napgirl: nautimike: Pfft, "female orgasm"...utter bunk! No such thing...

oh you poor man.


Video or it didn't happen?
 
2008-02-15 09:33:05 PM
ninjakirby: Check out other books recommended by Farkers here

You caught my recommendation of Parapsychology. Thanks!
 
2008-02-15 09:33:54 PM
ChadManMn: I say this because evolution cannot be recreated in a lab, and it cant be observed (outside of adaptation).

You're kidding, right? Google fruit fly evolution (pops) to start. Testable, repeatable, right in the lab. There are many other examples to choose from. Take antibiotics for example. This fields relies heavily on the ability to reproduce the predictable results of evolution in a laboratory, much as dump truck builders rely on the scientific theory of gravity to build trucks that dump stuff.
 
2008-02-15 09:33:57 PM
FormlessOne: Not to sound odd, but Bevets is one of the reasons I keep coming back to Fark. No, seriously.

Yeah, he's a religious fanatic, and yeah, I don't agree with him. But, he's coherent about his opinion


Coherent? I would say he is consistent with his opinion but he is very bad about expressing his opinion. He only rarely speaks in his own words and usually just posts quotes from others.

I do agree with you that he should not be banned though. I'm fairly confident that he believes everything he posts and is not trying to be inflammatory or argumentative.
 
2008-02-15 09:34:24 PM
philwz: Zamboro: The_Religious_Left: "I've seen similar MRI images produced for religious experiences. So by that same standard of proof religious experiences and feelings are equally as real of valid as any emotion."

Real in the sense that you're experiencing them. Not real in the sense that they correspond to anything outside of your own brain. That's provable, because we can reproduce religious visions/sensations through external stimulation. That pretty thoroughly demonstrates that it's all in your head.


How do you produce religious sensations? I'm not even sure how you would define religious sensations, other than sort of a belief and attitude toward something.

It seems like you are categorizing all religious thoughts as visions, which would of course could be simulated with an acid trip. But I don't see visions, I don't see ghosts, and I don't see Jesus in toast. I just happen to believe certain things, so how would you make that happen with an experiment?


This is correct. There is a part of the brain which can be manipulated to create visions, hallucinations. The fact that they are almost always religious is a cultural thing. If we lived in a society where the ratio of god to ghosts was inverted, we'd see more ghosts.
 
2008-02-15 09:34:39 PM
img139.imageshack.us
"Creationism, but that is not science."

"It is now. This helpful video will evade all your questions. Eyes screenward."

"So, you are calling god a liar an unbiased comparison of evolution and creationism. Let's say hi to two books; one a bible was written by our lord. The other, the origin of species was written by a cowardly drunk named Charles Darwin,"

"This is slander. Darwin was one of the greatest minds of all time!"

"Then, why is he making out with Satan?"

/Sorry, for got this.
 
2008-02-15 09:34:41 PM
Silly Floridians. Of course they are scientific theories. That strengthens the argument for them, since they have been through numerous testings and refinement of hypotheses that explain how a phenomon works. Next they will call light illuminating.
 
2008-02-15 09:34:55 PM
VonAether: ninjakirby: Check out other books recommended by Farkers here

You caught my recommendation of Parapsychology. Thanks!


and recommended it to my Psych professor. It's one of the first I plan on picking up soon as I get some cash flowing.
 
2008-02-15 09:36:16 PM
fudgefactor7 - Ya know, I think I'd actually pay good money to see Bevets banninated for life.

He's a troll and he posts the EXACT SAME argument each time, often multiple times in a thread; and multiple times throughout a given day, should there be religion/science discussions.

There have been other people banned for less...why not the B...?



Because he's a Fark icon.

(and I think he's Drew! Wouldn't that be awesome? If Bevets were just not only the ultimate troll, but DREW'S troll???)
 
2008-02-15 09:36:38 PM
I get the feeling that this thread won't be a 3-day juggernaut. I read 100 posts, refreshed, and found only 3 new posts. I'm almost disappointed.

/HERE TO HAVE FUN
 
2008-02-15 09:37:10 PM
SkinnyHead: "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design [...] " ~ Cardinal Christoph Schonborn.

Hi, SH. I'll note again, Schonborn is not an expert on design, and thus does not understand that design is an evolutionary process.
people.virginia.edu

FormlessOne: Bevets isn't nuts - just religious.

FTFY.
I agree with your position on banning him; on Fark, he's harmless and educational. Banned, he might go seriously off the deep end and become dangerous.

ninjakirby: complements of abb3w (I think)

Not one of my suggestions; I suggested "Darwin's Cathedral" on that line.
 
2008-02-15 09:38:42 PM
philwz: "How do you produce religious sensations? I'm not even sure how you would define religious sensations, other than sort of a belief and attitude toward something.

It seems like you are categorizing all religious thoughts as visions, which would of course could be simulated with an acid trip. But I don't see visions, I don't see ghosts, and I don't see Jesus in toast. I just happen to believe certain things, so how would you make that happen with an experiment?"


Want to find out? Do your homework. A big part of the problem here is that you're genuinely ignorant of the subject of cognitive neuroscience. I don't mean it as a dig; a great deal of moderate Christians in this generation believe in evolution where few did before thanks to consciousness raising efforts by popularizers of science (like Carl Sagan) in the past few decades.

The next field of science to raise consciousness about is cognitive neuroscience. Just as people believed (out of ignorance of evolution) that life was too complex to form without a designer, even most moderate theists currently believe out of ignorance of cognitive neuroscience that there's something about emotions that is special, magical, beyond the scope of science. It's my hope that with another few decades of public science education, we can raise acceptance of natural cognition to the same levels as acceptance of evolution.

Here's something to watch.

Here's something to read.
 
2008-02-15 09:39:22 PM
ninjakirby: and recommended it to my Psych professor. It's one of the first I plan on picking up soon as I get some cash flowing.

Do let me know what you think (both of you). I'd be curious to hear what someone with a background in a relevant field makes of it.
 
2008-02-15 09:40:29 PM
fudgefactor7: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?

Leibniz wrote a large, ponderous volume called the Theodicy devoted to answering that question

Don't know if he answered it -- never got through it --- it is large and ponderous
 
2008-02-15 09:40:46 PM
Man On Pink Corner: Drew should be paying him, not banning him.

Bevets does not pay for his img.fark.net.
 
2008-02-15 09:41:05 PM
What I'd like to know is whether Bevets specifically purchased a TotalFark account to harass people on this subject?
 
2008-02-15 09:41:16 PM
MiamiBlues: fudgefactor7: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?

Leibniz wrote a large, ponderous volume called the Theodicy devoted to answering that question

Don't know if he answered it -- never got through it --- it is large and ponderous



Is it shallow and pedantic?
 
2008-02-15 09:41:25 PM
Bevets bases all of his belief on the literal interpretation of a middle eastern book on mythology commonly known as the bible. His literal belief in this book precludes him from believing in Evolution, so he looks for facts that support his predetermined view, and ignores the overwhelming evidence from multiple branches of science that confirm the same thing. Evolution is real.

Bevet fails because his belief in the book of mythology is ill placed. This book is verifiably false in many passages. It was written about 60 years after the events it describes by people of unknown origin and motivations. He believes this book to be true because of no other reason than the book itself asserts that it is true. If I were to write on a sheet of paper the following:
1.this sheet of paper is infallible
2.evolution is true
3.Ohio is in north america
4.if anyone says that this sheet of paper is wrong see #1

I would have more legs to stand on than him.
 
2008-02-15 09:41:36 PM
abb3w: Banned, he might go seriously off the deep end and become dangerous.

You know who else went off the deep end and became dangerous?....
 
2008-02-15 09:41:51 PM
Zamboro: The next field of science to raise consciousness about is cognitive neuroscience. Just as people believed (out of ignorance of evolution) that life was too complex to form without a designer, even most moderate theists currently believe out of ignorance of cognitive neuroscience that there's something about emotions that is special, magical, beyond the scope of science. It's my hope that with another few decades of public science education, we can raise acceptance of natural cognition to the same levels as acceptance of evolution.

This, that, the other, and any and all demonstratives apart from those.
 
2008-02-15 09:42:15 PM
abb3w: Man On Pink Corner: Drew should be paying him, not banning him.

Bevets does not pay for his .


Who does?
 
2008-02-15 09:42:29 PM
fudgefactor7: abb3w: Banned, he might go seriously off the deep end and become dangerous.

You know who else went off the deep end and became dangerous?....


Charles Manson?
 
2008-02-15 09:42:59 PM
abb3w: Not one of my suggestions; I suggested "Darwin's Cathedral" on that line.

Right, my bad. I hadn't realized my list had grown to encompass a second page. Still only one book for the side of Religion/Creationism though.

Darwins Cathedral
 
2008-02-15 09:43:16 PM
technicolor-misfit: fudgefactor7 - Ya know, I think I'd actually pay good money to see Bevets banninated for life.

He's a troll and he posts the EXACT SAME argument each time, often multiple times in a thread; and multiple times throughout a given day, should there be religion/science discussions.

There have been other people banned for less...why not the B...?


Because he's a Fark icon.

(and I think he's Drew! Wouldn't that be awesome? If Bevets were just not only the ultimate troll, but DREW'S troll???)


Came in here to say the same thing. It's been mentioned by other people. Hey, wait a minute...

We have out own conspiracy! YEY!!
 
2008-02-15 09:43:46 PM
In my experience, female orgasm tends to produce all sorts of sudden references to God, even in nonbelievers. Evolution not so much. Maybe I'll see if I can't convince some girl to scream "scientific theory of evolution" in the throes of passion.
 
2008-02-15 09:43:55 PM
kidsizedcoffin: fudgefactor7: abb3w: Banned, he might go seriously off the deep end and become dangerous.

You know who else went off the deep end and became dangerous?....

Charles Manson?


No, but I'll give you a hint...

Q: What's worse than finding a worm in your apple?....
A: The Holocaust...
 
2008-02-15 09:44:09 PM
How do you produce religious sensations? I'm not even sure how you would define religious sensations, other than sort of a belief and attitude toward something.

Opiates.
 
2008-02-15 09:44:15 PM
kidsizedcoffin: MiamiBlues: fudgefactor7: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?

Leibniz wrote a large, ponderous volume called the Theodicy devoted to answering that question

Don't know if he answered it -- never got through it --- it is large and ponderous

Is it shallow and pedantic?


No, I am -- Leibniz was a genius, it turns out.
 
2008-02-15 09:44:23 PM
I'm sure this will surprise absolutely no one here, but it turns out that the counties in Florida that are adopting these anti-evolution resolutions also happen to be the counties with the lowest scores on the science section of the FCAT.

What a curious coincidence....
 
2008-02-15 09:44:45 PM
The phrase would also appear in front of Big Bang and and plate tectonics, for example.

Plate tectonics? I mean, they have been proven with irrefutable evidence. Fault lines anyone? The fact that continents move away from each other with a measurable rate. I could maybe see that the big bang would still be under 'consideration' but plate tectonics aren't a theory, they are a fact.
 
Displayed 50 of 760 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report