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 | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-16 03:49:32 AM
abb3w:
things I do to my cats...: "having studied cosmology and astrophysics since ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, i'm really getting a kick out of your dim-wittedness."

Meh, I got distracted by nuclear engineering in kindergarten myself; pestered dad about it no end. I didn't get back into cosmology until around 5th grade when the Cosmos series went onto PBS.


and i assume that yours isn't "just a claim" either... i cut my teeth on what were then older National Geographics talking about the main sequence stars, supernovae, neutron stars, black holes, etc., had fun understanding the H-R diagram, and got a good footing on what all that meant. i have no idea how i knew what the various elements they were talking about already, but i did. got the speed of light banged into my head and it as a speed limit (that was a strange idea for a very young mind)... tried to discuss (explain!) the black hole and sigularity physics to parental units and they just said "that's nice dear... *whispers* *did you ever hear such nonsense?! *whisper*"...

i may have had more in the way of "nuclear engineering" (not sure exactly what you mean by that) than i know of at the time, but sure had enough of a grasp of the underlying particle/spacial physics to get the whole "warped space looking like a sagging graph paper" and particles not getting out of the event horizon issue.

there was even the idea of evaporating black holes, but there was no good math at the time and that was very sketchy (not sure when the math firmed up on that notion, but it was long after then).

fun stuff.
 
2008-02-16 03:52:27 AM
JSTACAT: abb3w :.......not so much "enjoyment of" as "success with".

those words are interesting, i posit that sucess comes from the projection of enjoyment onto the weaker sex.
Women really need the fountain of joy to be provided.
if left to themselvs with logic alone, they will dither and fade out emotionally.
once in a million, a Lady may be found who is an Originator,
with enough inner wealth as not to keep track of expenditures of the personal kind, or as we call it, a state of Ubuntu


was wondering when we'd get back to the topic of female orgasm...

... and since i just got my beers for this evening, just in time.

:-)
 
2008-02-16 03:56:38 AM
abb3w: JSTACAT: // i didn't mean that as a catty comment, actually & glad you were able to receive that,

Didn't care, really. Nearly 20 years on the Internet gives me a pretty thick skin on most personal topics. I try to be realistic about my limitations, the better to advance upon and overcome them. It doesn't always work, but is generally an improvement on the alternative.

JSTACAT: the abilitys your family has with visualising complex ideas is pretty rare.

We are a pack of major freaks, yes. =)

This is not to say this is an evolutionary advantage; several mental disorders also run in the family, dyslexia being the most pleasant of them.


i think i see a trend.

also, "on the internet for 20 years"? isn't that before Al Gore? (who i love dearly, btw)
 
2008-02-16 04:03:20 AM
btw: WHAT is an "abb3w"?
 
2008-02-16 04:04:51 AM
things I do to my cats... :

// i don't tell gals this, but the 0 is really a seizure brought on by a scaffold of pleasure pulses + frustration [pepper]
give/withold until the limbic system crashes.

if they knew that it was a 'science' they'd be po'd
after a few hrs of crashes, theres no fakn it

the 0 is the desperation of stimulus....

Problyn serve me right if my Gf is lurkn here, i wonder when she's gonna just bust out of a thred & let me have it, try to pants me...

well thats interesting, i hope she tries it..
it would be "Evolutionary"
 
2008-02-16 04:11:16 AM
Cerebral Ballsy: Bevets: The Florida blab blah blah bevets blah blah blah...


I came just to make sure this retard showed up!


Yeah! The Ballsy!
 
2008-02-16 04:15:22 AM
JSTACAT: things I do to my cats... :

// i don't tell gals this, but the 0 is really a seizure brought on by a scaffold of pleasure pulses + frustration [pepper]
give/withold until the limbic system crashes.

if they knew that it was a 'science' they'd be po'd
after a few hrs of crashes, theres no fakn it

the 0 is the desperation of stimulus....

Problyn serve me right if my Gf is lurkn here, i wonder when she's gonna just bust out of a thred & let me have it, try to pants me...

well thats interesting, i hope she tries it..
it would be "Evolutionary"


did you get "pantsed"?
for your sake, let's say we hope so...
and if i find out who she is, i'm gonna tell her! *grin*
 
2008-02-16 04:24:51 AM
things I do to my cats...:
several mental disorders also run in the family, dyslexia being the most pleasant of them:

// try this variant:
several unresearched mental abilities also run in the family, dyslexia being the most well known of them.

dyslexia has been & is used by artists,
a state like that can be self induced to further the creation of art...


unfortunately most everyone learnt their version of mind science as a f a c t, not a theory. Then the mind tends to reject new fangled info & research.

everything is a theory until it's experienced, thus i have no problem with people who call God a theory.
once they have made contact, all else will be illuminated
here i call a file: "Amazing Grace"
 
2008-02-16 04:35:55 AM
things I do to my cats... :
Yeah, She can pants me..:) hehe

after all these yrs, does she really know i plan for those things just in case, even though i told her many times how i am. She knows i'm on fark, and she knows i told her cuz theres, ummm more adventures if she checks it out

She would never 'disclose' cuz i'm better at the pantsing, but might try a handle i would never guess.
my only protection is my morals....
meanwhile i can hardly wait.. dayum that would be weird...
i173.photobucket.com
 
2008-02-16 04:41:41 AM
Wait until they find out about female ejaculation.
 
2008-02-16 05:25:24 AM
As long as they explain what 'scientific' and 'theory' means too
 
2008-02-16 08:11:43 AM
Sumo Surfer

Some atheists cling to evolutionism as fervently as[...]


ninjakirby

Please refrain from using that term, it only increases it's circulation and adds credence to the idea that Evolution has an '-ism'.

SkinnyHead

The term "Evolutionism" is also used to mean a materialist worldview.


abb3w

And it's that sloppiness in the terminology that leaves you vulnerable to claims of Equivocation.

Damnhippyfreak

The point that he was trying to make (and I think is a valid one), is that there is a difference between the idea of evolution as a specific scientific theory and this concept of "evolutionism" which seems to be a sort of overwrought material positivism.

LazarusLong42

Remember that all creationists are also atheists. Not a single one of them believes in Allah, Krishna, Zeus, Wotan, Zoroaster, Mithra, etc., and certainly not in the gods associated with these gods. Those people they label "atheists" simply believe in one fewer god than they do.

things I do to my cats...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts


2+2 is not '7', it is not '64.02', it is not 'yellow'. I contend that we are both absurdists. I just believe in one less answer than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible answers, you will understand why I dismiss yours

Bill_Wick's_Friend

I don't mind the argument.

I mind that one of the usual participants in this argument offers nothing new. Not even a rephrasing of his own schtick. Just the same cut-n-pasted post over and over.

If the majority of your posts involve you pushing "ctl c" and "ctl v" then you're not really interested in a debate as much as you're interested in getting your quantity of words in the thread. These thread should be about debate and quality. "Bulkiness" doesn't impress and should be removed.

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.


things I do to my cats...

When Bevets posts something that isn't a bunch of quotes...

Go ahead and give some more silly out-of-context quotes by people who firmly disagree with EVERYTHING you think (like Dawkins) and ignore any real discussion.

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.

manimal2878

Shut up you stupid farking moron.

Cerebral Ballsy

I came just to make sure this retard showed up!

aerojockey

Man, Bevets used to be cool (and by "cool" I mean cool like a village idiot). Now he's just lame.

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.

SleepyMcGee

You still need to edit your web page. That second Patterson quote needs the addition of an asterisk and a statement to the effect of "This is taken grossly out of context due to the fact that one paragraph later he says the exact opposite of this.

Bevets

You know something, if my yawn got any bigger they'd have to assign it a hurricane name, okay? ~ Dennis Miller

Bevets 2008-02-10 12:08:58 PM
Bevets 2008-02-04 12:29:39 AM

Some students "say they don't believe in evolution, they don't believe people came from monkeys," said Steve Crandall, an eighth-grade science teacher at Inverness Middle School in Citrus County and president of the Florida Association of Science Teachers. "You see their eyes perk up and you sense that it's an important question (to them). They deserve to be heard."

So, Crandall said, he listens. And then he tells his students this: There are some questions science can't answer.

Bevets

We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific .... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. ~ Colin Patterson

Sleeping Monkey

The difference between science and the pseudo-science of creationism, is that science strives to answer unanswered questions whereas creationism is content NOT answering them, and in fact encourages complacency with the cop-out response/answer 'God did it'.

Bevets

This is about Evolutionism NOT science.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin

Translation: 'Goddidndoit' The End. la la la la la la la

SleepyMcGee

ONE PARAGRAPH LATER


The general theory of evolution is thus neither fully scientific (like physics, for example) nor unscientific (like history). Although it has no laws it does have rules, and it does make general predictions about the properties of organisms. It therefore lays itself open to disproof.

Patterson then starts to list off tests Darwin did that could have destroyed his theory.

He started off by making a proposition and analyzing it. You left out the analysis. I can't believe how f*cking dishonest you can be. Doesn't your Holy Book say something about bearing false witness?

So, here is an example of ANOTHER one of your f*cking quotes taken horribly out of context. Mark this timestamp. Update your quote-scripts. And again, stop being an intellectually dishonest asshole.

Bevets

Please list the parts that are not scientific. Do you also have the paragraph after the part where Lewontin confessed that 'materialism is an absolute'? Is materialism a scientific discovery?
 
2008-02-16 09:18:19 AM
things I do to my cats...:

also, "on the internet for 20 years"? isn't that before Al Gore? (who i love dearly, btw)


To be fair, GRABBS (Grand Rapids Area Bulletin Board System) was around c. 1985. Two of my brothers, my dad, and his buddy used it quite extensively. You dialed in directly to a BBS server and posted messages that other people could read and respond to.

My oldest brother walked into an employee's office one afternoon and saw a poster for an event my Dad and his buddy used to put on every summer. Bro asked about it... the employee responds "Oh. I used to go to that all the time. We used to talk about it on the old GRABBS system in the 80s."

Maybe not "The Internets", but pretty darn close, IMO.
 
2008-02-16 09:31:11 AM
abb3w: Have you ever considered that the entire point of your existence might be as a hideous warning for others?

Yes. Every single day.

If you were not being playfully joking, what the hell do you have against me and what have I ever done to you?
 
2008-02-16 09:34:00 AM
SkinnyHead: Do Evolutionists believe strongly in Evolution? That sounds like a religion.

Again, is that trying to be some sort of argument or is that just snark?
 
2008-02-16 09:36:56 AM
Bevets: Please list the parts that are not scientific. Do you also have the paragraph after the part where Lewontin confessed that 'materialism is an absolute'? Is materialism a scientific discovery?

Why does it matter what whit whether Lewontin thinks about materialism.

No matter what he thinks about materialism, it will not change the evidence for evolution one little bit.

The evidence for evolution stand regardless of the status of materialism with one minor exception.

That exception and the only way that nonmaterialism can save any form of creationism or intelligent design in biology is a God (or designer or whatever) that intentionally created the biological word to appear exactly like it had been the result of a process of evolution.

Creationism is nothing more than calling a God a liar every time he created a genome, placed a fossil, distributed life, etc.

If I believed in God, I would consider creationism to be nothing more than blasphemy.
 
2008-02-16 09:39:24 AM
TheMysteriousStranger: Why does it matter what one whit whether Lewontin thinks about materialism.

I don't know how that happened.
 
2008-02-16 09:58:14 AM
shadowself: Bevets: Links allow me to make very concise arguments.

You actually have your own ideas? I thought you just posted links to the arguments and words of others.


i went to check it out, its just a load of quotes by famous people. so now if we apply the bevets theory to scientology we can see that the CofS is correct, tom cruise said so.

scientists have testable theories, bevets has a load of quotes by jefferson and dawkins. guess who wins.
 
2008-02-16 10:01:28 AM
i190.photobucket.com
 
2008-02-16 10:21:19 AM
Bevets: things I do to my cats...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

2+2 is not '7', it is not '64.02', it is not 'yellow'. I contend that we are both absurdists. I just believe in one less answer than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible answers, you will understand why I dismiss yours


The difference being that we can mathematically prove that one and only one answer is correct for 2+2, but we cannot, to date, use anything to prove the existence of ANY divine being, much less the one you believe in. So, you know, you fail.

SkinnyHead: PC LOAD LETTER: More crap. You can use that argument for anything someone believes strongly in.

Do Evolutionists believe strongly in Evolution? That sounds like a religion.


You use the term belief in an incredibly loose and sloopy way. More accurately it should read "do evolutionists accept the validity of evolution based on the scientific evidence?" In which case, the answer is yes.

And you've used term religion in such an obtuse way as to be meaningless. Any strong belief equates to religion? Really? So kids have a tooth fairy religion? And husbands and wives in denial have a "my spouse is not cheating on me" religion? And Tom Hanks has a "I really am an actor" religion? See how little sense those makes? Religion is based on more than strong belief in something. Of course, an atheist like yourself would do everything in your power to make religion meaningless, so I guess this isn't a surprise.
 
2008-02-16 10:39:22 AM
abb3w:
Helios1182: I bet it would blow your mind that in some geometries all lines (including parallel) intersect.

Hah; pitiful. Try mathematics' equivalent to the g-o-a-t-s-e pic, the Not-Safe-For-Brain Banach-Tarski sphere dissection.


I figured even easy concepts like project geometry would confuse him. I have even been awake an hour and the Banach-Tarski sphere dissection has blown my mind for the day. Very cool stuff.
 
2008-02-16 10:41:37 AM
TheMysteriousStranger: Creationism is nothing more than calling a God a liar every time he created a genome, placed a fossil, distributed life, etc.

If I believed in God, I would consider creationism to be nothing more than blasphemy.


What I find really interesting is that (by Bevets own admission) Intelligent Design doesn't reconcile with his brand of YEC.[1][2][3]
ID originally had a very wide defintion; ie "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact" (Biology and Creation.) This is in stark contrast to the definition of Intelligent Design put forward by one of it's staunchest supporters. "The primary difference between Intelligent Design and and Evolutionary Theory is that Intelligent Design argues that Evolution is a guided process."(John Calvert)

Which is it, that they appear abruptly with distinctive features intact, or that the process of Evolution has merely been guided?

Bevets has called this frontloading and though he won't acknowledge how he's using the term[1][2][3] The definition I found for it is "Knowing in advance what your target is." In politics/economics the idea is "To concentrate costs or benefits of (a financial obligation or deal) in an early period."
To me it seems that Creationism, esp YEC is frontloading. They claim that everything started in six days, fully formed. They concentrate their beliefs on the origins to what they believe is the earliest possible time period. They also know in advance (presuppose) the existence a God to support this belief.

To me it seems that though the two (ID/Creationism) are linked in purpose they are not only incompatible with science, but incompatible with each other.

And if anyone sees a problem with me using quotations for a definition while at the same time many of us disparage Bevets for the practice, the difference is that Creatonism is a social movement and must be defined by it's followers.
 
2008-02-16 10:46:11 AM
Female Orgasms help the sperm get into the uterus.

/that is all
//continue your religion flamewar!
///Every sperm is sacred...
 
2008-02-16 10:50:30 AM
The_Time_Master: Female Orgasms help the sperm get into the uterus.

Surprisingly, so does the Male orgasm!

And because I want a reason to post this;
"Physics is like sex - it may give practical results, but that's not why we do it." Richard P. Feynman, attributed.
 
2008-02-16 10:56:12 AM
Helios1182: abb3w:
Helios1182: I bet it would blow your mind that in some geometries all lines (including parallel) intersect.

Hah; pitiful. Try mathematics' equivalent to the g-o-a-t-s-e pic, the Not-Safe-For-Brain Banach-Tarski sphere dissection.


I figured even easy concepts like project geometry would confuse him. I have even been awake an hour and the Banach-Tarski sphere dissection has blown my mind for the day. Very cool stuff.


Wow! You need to get out from your mom's basement and get some sun.
 
2008-02-16 11:07:15 AM
So, does anyone have an opinion about evolution vs. creationism?
 
2008-02-16 11:15:51 AM
homerjaythompson: So, does anyone have an opinion about evolution vs. creationism?

I do. I believe that both are completely unprovable. Although evolution makes much more sense in some respects, evolution creates more questions than it answers. Trying to find the truth in any of these concepts is like trying to count to infinity. You will never get there.
 
2008-02-16 11:16:34 AM
homerjaythompson: So, does anyone have an opinion about evolution vs. creationism?

Evolution is 18-0 and the creationist's plane crashed into a mountain of evidence on the way to the next game.

I'm calling it for evolution.
 
2008-02-16 11:23:52 AM
Bevets: You know something, if my yawn got any bigger they'd have to assign it a hurricane name, okay? ~ Dennis Miller

Bevets 2008-02-10 12:08:58 PM
Bevets 2008-02-04 12:29:39 AM


Non-Sequitur:
Some students "say they don't believe in evolution, they don't believe people came from monkeys," said Steve Crandall, an eighth-grade science teacher at Inverness Middle School in Citrus County and president of the Florida Association of Science Teachers. "You see their eyes perk up and you sense that it's an important question (to them). They deserve to be heard."

So, Crandall said, he listens. And then he tells his students this: There are some questions science can't answer.


/end non-seuitur

Yeah, you never defended against my accusations in those linked threads. You produced a bunch of non-sequitur statements like this one making a red herring as a response.

Science doesn't have all the answers. This is a correct statement. Science doesn't claim to. By insinuating that I am arguing that science knows all the answers is a horrible straw man. Actually, it's not even close to what I'm saying. Stop being so dishonest and actually address HOW the statement was not taken out of context. You never addressed this.

You have to quote Dennis Miller to try and convey that you are bored? Really? If you want to drop this, that's fine. I just wish you would actually address what people ask instead of linking to threads full of non-sequitur quotations.
 
2008-02-16 11:26:21 AM
shocker66s: homerjaythompson: So, does anyone have an opinion about evolution vs. creationism?

I do. I believe that both are completely unprovable. Although evolution makes much more sense in some respects, evolution creates more questions than it answers. Trying to find the truth in any of these concepts is like trying to count to infinity. You will never get there.


You'll get further along if you actually start counting versus just saying God did it and giving up.
 
2008-02-16 11:30:33 AM
shocker66s: homerjaythompson: So, does anyone have an opinion about evolution vs. creationism?

I do. I believe that both are completely unprovable. Although evolution makes much more sense in some respects, evolution creates more questions than it answers. Trying to find the truth in any of these concepts is like trying to count to infinity. You will never get there.


Retreating to solipsism is not a valid argument.

The obvious difference between creationism and evolution is that evolution can be tested and is supported by evidence. Creationism can't be scientifically tested (although YEC and "special creation" certainly can) and cannot be supported by evidence.

Your insistence on scientific "proof" suggests that you don't really understand how science works.
 
2008-02-16 11:37:33 AM
Kome: shocker66s: homerjaythompson: So, does anyone have an opinion about evolution vs. creationism?

I do. I believe that both are completely unprovable. Although evolution makes much more sense in some respects, evolution creates more questions than it answers. Trying to find the truth in any of these concepts is like trying to count to infinity. You will never get there.

You'll get further along if you actually start counting versus just saying God did it and giving up.


I agree with your statement.
 
2008-02-16 11:43:13 AM
improvius: shocker66s: homerjaythompson: So, does anyone have an opinion about evolution vs. creationism?

I do. I believe that both are completely unprovable. Although evolution makes much more sense in some respects, evolution creates more questions than it answers. Trying to find the truth in any of these concepts is like trying to count to infinity. You will never get there.

Retreating to solipsism is not a valid argument.

The obvious difference between creationism and evolution is that evolution can be tested and is supported by evidence. Creationism can't be scientifically tested (although YEC and "special creation" certainly can) and cannot be supported by evidence.

Your insistence on scientific "proof" suggests that you don't really understand how science works.


I'm not retreating, I am simply making an observation and yes it is a valid argument. I am not saying evolution is right or wrong. The funny part is that people get all bent out of shape when you suggest it. To me they are no different than a fanatical Christian. They found something that makes sense to them and they just shut their minds to anything else.
 
2008-02-16 11:49:14 AM
shocker66s: They found something that makes sense to them and they just shut their minds to anything else.

Ok, wise one. What do you think I'm shutting my mind to? Enlighten me.
 
2008-02-16 11:51:54 AM
shocker66s: I'm not retreating, I am simply making an observation and yes it is a valid argument. I am not saying evolution is right or wrong. The funny part is that people get all bent out of shape when you suggest it. To me they are no different than a fanatical Christian. They found something that makes sense to them and they just shut their minds to anything else.

Evolution is right, as backed up by every scientific piece of evidence we have to date. In the future, who knows? We might find some evidence that refutes it. But until then, we have enough evidence that the theory of evolution is just as true as the theory of gravity or atomic theory.

The people getting bent out of shape are doing so for a good reason. A massive body of scientific evidence converges on the theory of evolution, from anthropology, biology, paleontology, geology, medicine, mathematics, chemistry, and physics. And many other sciences, both natural and social.

People who question evolution should not necessarily be attacked or villified, but the people who deny it, or who deny it's importance, or who deny the massive amount of evidence supporting it are quite frankly scientifically illiterate. And they should be educated. The ones who refuse to learn, they're the ones worth mocking.
 
2008-02-16 11:53:30 AM
ancker: Could it be that those who are anti-religious are projecting ill-intent on the proposal? Why must everything proposed by the religious be scrutinized and labeled as 'shoehorning their beliefs' on someone? Is it impossible for the proposal to be an actual compromise that satisfies both sides?

A quickie rundown of the legal history:

1925: The Scopes trial, in which a teacher was tried and convicted for violating a Tennessee law banning the teaching of evolution.
1967: Butler law declared unconstitutional
1968: A similar Arkansas "monkey law" is struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Epperson vs. Arkansas
1973: the Tennessee state legislature passes the first "equal time" law requiring schools to devote as much time to the teaching of Genesis as they do to evolution
1975: Tennessee's "equal time" law is struck down by a Federal court in Daniel vs. Waters. In response to this ruling, creationists began re-casting their beliefs as an alternative scientific theory - "Creation Science"
1981: State of Arkansas passes a new act requiring that "Creation Science" be taught alongside evolution in public schools. This law was struck down the same year in McLean vs. Arkansas. On the same day that the Arkansas law was struck down, Mississippi passed a similar law requiring "balanced treatment" of evolution and "Creation Science"
1987: Mississippi's "balanced treatment" law is struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards vs Aguilard
1981: A creationist sues in California, claiming that the teaching of evolution violates his family's freedom of religion. This argument is rejected by the California Supreme Court (Sacramento Superior Court,Segraves v California)
1984: A California biology teacher sues both the state and the local school board, claiming that the teaching of evolution establishes "the religion of secular humanism." This argument is also rejected by the courts (Peloza v New Capistrano School District)
1989: In response to adverse court rulings on "Creation Science," a new label is coined: "Intelligent Design." The publishers of "Of Pandas and People" systematically replace all the old references to "Creation Scientists" in the original texts with "Design Proponents" and similar language, resulting in a hilarious typo ("Cdesign proponentsists") that will return to haunt them later
1994: Tangipahoa School Board in Louisiana passes a law requiring the reading of a disclaimer before any lesson on evolution
1999: The Louisiana anti-evolution disclaimer is struck down by a Federal court in Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Ed. The U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the board's appeal
2005: A similar disclaimer involving stickers on the biology textbooks in Georgia is struck down in Selman v Cobb County School District. The same year, "Intelligent Design" is ruled unconstitutional in Kitzmiller vs. Dover

Source: http://www.geocities.com/lflank/legal.htm

And that brings us to 2008, where creationists are once again trying similar tactics in several states, most notably Florida and Texas. Since the courts have ruled time and again that it is unconstitutional to teach creationism in public schools, either directly or in the form of pseudosciences such as "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design," creationist tactics involve attempting to water down the state science standards and cast unreasonable doubts on evolution. It shouldn't be difficult to see that this is just part of the same ongoing campaign against science.
 
2008-02-16 11:58:43 AM
Bevets:
Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Wait...God can't get through tin foil?
 
2008-02-16 11:59:34 AM
JSTACAT: i consider it to be the basic threshold of developed intelligence when one has mastered the ability to examine ideas without gettng emotionally out of control.

You've been watching too much Star Trek, Spock.
Emotions are an approximation algorithm that's survived evolutionary testing; and the typical three year old is intelligent enough to do some basic design, even if lacking in emotional control.

JSTACAT: i would have been classed add & dyslexic, but ignoring parents and school i kept my own counsel

Oh, my parents never bothered mentioning it to the school. My 2 sibs and I are freakishly bright enough that it mostly showed as a knack for anagrams. My dysgraphia took a couple years with a tutor. Mom mentioned it to some of the extended family when merely medium-bright cousins and 2nd cousins were about to be classed as "retarded" by idiot school systems. Usually a year or so in a program to handle that had them up to speed and more.

JSTACAT: calling all of the different thought systems theories will force the student to create their own theories.

But not provide them the formal tools for differentiating between the quality levels of the theories. Part of the essence of science is competitive testing, where bad theories are discarded. While adding set theory, Turing machines, and Computational Complexity to the math curriculum might allow a way around that, they're relatively impractical branches of mathematics, and schools have enough difficulty wedging in the useful stuff that it seems unlikely it could be put in before the end of 8th grade.

JSTACAT: What we now call disabilities may actually be components of evolved assets in the future.

I suspect they're more on the lines of side effects; much as how a single gene copy confers Malarial immunity, but two gives sickle cell anemia.

things I do to my cats...: and i assume that yours isn't "just a claim" either

Nope. Dad worked as a nuclear engineer. When I was about 5, he had a major back operation; the PT required him to take a brisk 20 minute walk three times a day for the remainder of his life. So, I would often go along to keep him company, and pester him about various topics. The image of a U238 nucleus eating a neutron and then barfing out a couple electrons was particularly vivid. =)

things I do to my cats...: also, "on the internet for 20 years"? isn't that before Al Gore? (who i love dearly, btw)

Almost 20, yes. The Internet actually dates back to the early 1970s. Al Gore's (slightly overblown) role was (essentially) to take it from the government-coordinated education and research network to an open public utility. Which is a good thing. Unfortunately, he didn't anticipate the problem of Net Neutrality.

My earliest surviving footprint on the net is my "yes" vote for the (failed) creation of the rec.pyrotechnics.nuclear Usenet group, December of 1990.

things I do to my cats...: btw: WHAT is an "abb3w"?

A UserID that predates the WWW. What good are chocolate covered manhole covers?

JSTACAT: several unresearched mental abilities also run in the family, dyslexia being the most well known of them.

No; "disorders" is the correct term. As I said, dyslexia is merely the most pleasant.

Bevets: claims of Equivocation.

The alleged difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is merely an increase in timescale. (Equivocation and False Dichotomy are closely tied.) The Science of "evolution" and the associated social hubbub in what you term "evolutionism" are more separable. Would you care to discuss this at length?

PC LOAD LETTER: If you were not being playfully joking, what the hell do you have against me and what have I ever done to you?

Nothing against you; in my more cynical moments, I'm pretty sure that "hideous warning to others" is one of my major functions in life.

The_Time_Master: Female Orgasms help the sperm get into the uterus.

Only relatively close to ovulation; other times, the contractions go the other way to push the previous uterine lining out. Sort of "oh, possible guest coming, time to clean house".
 
2008-02-16 12:02:00 PM
shocker66s: homerjaythompson: So, does anyone have an opinion about evolution vs. creationism?

I do. I believe that both are completely unprovable. Although evolution makes much more sense in some respects, evolution creates more questions than it answers. Trying to find the truth in any of these concepts is like trying to count to infinity. You will never get there.


Goodness. Evolution is a fact. It happened. Just going by the fossil record alone it's absolutely factual that animals have evolved over time. There are no Precambrian rabbit fossils. What we have is millions of pieces of evidence that life on this planet started as simple organisms and then evolved into more complex organisms.

There is also ample evidence that the planet has evolved geologically. Do you even know what the word "evolve" means?
 
2008-02-16 12:12:59 PM
abb3w: Emotions are an approximation algorithm that's survived evolutionary testing; and the typical three year old is intelligent enough to do some basic design, even if lacking in emotional control.

Emotions are biological amplifiers. They get us to focus on and respond to survival relevant stimuli much quicker and more intensely. Sometimes they are approximate algorithms, but sometimes they give one razor sharp focus for more optimized responses. In the brain rehabilitation world, we exploit that aspect of emotionality.
 
2008-02-16 12:17:02 PM
Billy-Bob Kenobi: creationist tactics involve attempting to water down the state science standards and cast unreasonable doubts on evolution

Micheal Behe, under Cross Examination.
Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.

But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

Yes, that's correct.[...]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18), PM Session, Part 1


Think about that. That is the sort of 'science' these people want to teach our children. Forget the entire reasoning behind ID; think about what other effects this would have, to loosen the definition of what is considered science.
 
2008-02-16 12:18:11 PM
GodIsDead:
I know of no scientific theory that rejects a specific god...


No, specific gods get rejected by science all the time. Bob the god of antigravity, who pushes objects away from each other regardless of charge and is 100x more powerful than his brother jim, god of gravity, for instance.

And, you know, the god that theoretically created the world twice in two separate mutually exclusive six-day periods.

But the idea of a guiding intelligence in general? Yeah, science doesn't know. Not really testable, so not really our bailiwick yet. That there is a god that hasn't done any of the things religion claims but science have indicated don't happen, is, in fact, believed by most of us. We've even learned that he plays dice.
 
2008-02-16 12:18:13 PM
shocker66s: Although evolution makes much more sense in some respects, evolution creates more questions than it answers.

This, however, is true of all scientific theories more advanced than the primal "duuuuhhhhhh...". It provides the most concise coding for the data; ergo, of present candidates it is the one most probably correct, even though (as is usual with science) there is room for further improvement.

improvius: Retreating to solipsism is not a valid argument.

It is, however, a valid philosophical position... as long as you don't mind that everyone the assorted figments of your imagination around you keep pointing out that you've rejected any connection between Observation and Evidence.

Billy-Bob Kenobi: And that brings us to 2008, where creationists are once again trying similar tactics in several states, most notably Florida and Texas.

And, as mentioned earlier in the thread, Oklahoma. Florida and Texas are more critical, however, due to their high level of school textbook purchases and disproportionate impact on the education market thereby.
 
2008-02-16 12:21:46 PM
improvius: shocker66s: They found something that makes sense to them and they just shut their minds to anything else.

Ok, wise one. What do you think I'm shutting my mind to? Enlighten me.


I did not specify you in particular were shutting your mind. If you feel I was singling you out, then I apologize. The problem is that the theory of evolution is based on human observation. Human observation tends to gravitate towards being incorrect. About 90 years ago scientist believed the universe was about the size of our galaxy, not long ago most scientist believed the sound barrier was unbreakable. The list goes on and on. My point is just that it could be wrong. Thats all.
 
2008-02-16 12:23:57 PM
abb3w: Florida and Texas are more critical, however, due to their high level of school textbook purchases and disproportionate impact on the education market thereby.

Texas I can somewhat understand. But Florida has an impact on the education market? Thereby, even!??

God I hate my state. Bunch of retards who have influence run this place. Scotty needs to beam my ass up...
 
2008-02-16 12:26:09 PM
Texas I can somewhat understand. But Florida has an impact on the education market? Thereby, even!??

What else do/did Texas and Florida have in common?

Think about where NCLB came from...
 
2008-02-16 12:28:30 PM
Billy-Bob Kenobi: In response to adverse court rulings on "Creation Science," a new label is coined: "Intelligent Design."

The term "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism has been around long time before that court decision.

A similar disclaimer involving stickers on the biology textbooks in Georgia is struck down in Selman v Cobb County School District.

The district court decision in Selman was vacated by the US Court of Appeals as unsupported by the evidence.
 
2008-02-16 12:28:46 PM
shocker66s: Human observation tends to gravitate towards being incorrect.

It tends to gravitate towards being limited, not necessarily incorrect. Which is why in science, no single observation is really worth giving a crap about. It's the culmination of many observations, made independently of one another, that can be verified, that count.
 
2008-02-16 12:30:12 PM
whatshisname: shocker66s: homerjaythompson: So, does anyone have an opinion about evolution vs. creationism?

I do. I believe that both are completely unprovable. Although evolution makes much more sense in some respects, evolution creates more questions than it answers. Trying to find the truth in any of these concepts is like trying to count to infinity. You will never get there.

Goodness. Evolution is a fact. It happened. Just going by the fossil record alone it's absolutely factual that animals have evolved over time. There are no Precambrian rabbit fossils. What we have is millions of pieces of evidence that life on this planet started as simple organisms and then evolved into more complex organisms.

There is also ample evidence that the planet has evolved geologically. Do you even know what the word "evolve" means?


Fact? Really? Be careful how you answer. You just stepped into a minefield. Care to retract or do you believe 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, no BS that evolutions is completely and irrefutably correct?
 
2008-02-16 12:30:39 PM
SkinnyHead: The term "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism has been around long time before that court decision.

And yet "creationism" and "creation science" were used by the vast majority of people who now go around spouting off "intelligent design." It doesn't matter what you call it, it's the same thing. You've gone from dressing the emperor in one set of invisible clothes to another set of invisble clothes.
 
Displayed 50 of 760 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report