abb3w: 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.

Ah, I didn't know about Oklahoma. I knew this crap had resurfaced again in South Carolina, but the last I'd heard was that it was voted down there.

shocker66s:
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?

As I said - evolution happened.

Kome: 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.

You say limited, I say incorrect. Different opinions I suppose. I reminds me of that story of 2 ducks looking up at the sky. As they look they see an airbus flying overhead. The first duck says "That is the mighty Sky God". The other says "NO! That is a super duck!!" All the other ducks nod in approval at the super duck comment. Two humans walk by and one says "Actually that is call an aircraft. It is powered by jet engines and relies on aerodynamics to keep it aloft." The two ducks just look at him dumbfounded. So the human looks at the 2 ducks with pity and says "Its a super duck." The one duck looks at the other and says "WTF! Humans speak duck!"

abb3w: Kome: Texas I can somewhat understand. But Florida has an impact on the education market? Thereby, even!??

"Texas buys about 10 percent of all K-12 textbooks, and Florida buys another 8 percent". (Source)

God. Can't you ever just put an argument in your own words? These flagrant appeals to authority and out-of-context quotes just demonstrate how little you know about these issues!

j/k

Interesting. This does bring up a good question, though. Why, if Florida buys so many textbooks, has Florida consistently ranked so goddamn low in education?

SkinnyHead: Kome: 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.

Vast majority? No. And the fact that creationists embrace intelligent design does not mean that intelligent design is the same as creationism. Atheists go around spouting off about evolution. Does that mean that the theory of evolution is the same as atheism?

Isn't that one of the major cruxes of your "argument" against evolution, that evolution is atheistic? Don't you hold that to be self-evident?

SkinnyHead: Vast majority? No. And the fact that creationists embrace intelligent design does not mean that intelligent design is the same as creationism. Atheists go around spouting off about evolution. Does that mean that the theory of evolution is the same as atheism?

The fact that "intelligent design" is a marketing program developed by creationists makes your argument irrelevant.

SkinnyHead: The district court decision in Selman was vacated by the US Court of Appeals... and was remanded to the district court, along with specific instructions on portions of the factual record that the Appeals Court wanted clarified, whereupon Cobb county settled the case (and agreed not to take actions that would undermine the teaching of evolution in Cobb county.)

Not exactly what I'd call a win for your side.

abb3w: shocker66s: Human observation tends to gravitate towards being incorrect.

However, all evidence suggests the errors are Turing degree zero. A large part of Science deals with the problem of observation errors.

shocker66s: My point is just that it could be wrong.

And your first twenty-four Poker hands at Vegas might all be natural Royal Flushes, but I think you'd still be surprised.

There's also the question of what decimal place it's wrong at. At under 0.2 ppm of c, Newtonian Physics versus Relativity doesn't change Mike Adams's pitching much.

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

"Texas buys about 10 percent of all K-12 textbooks, and Florida buys another 8 percent". (Source)

At least you can agree that evolution could be wrong. Thats good.

PC LOAD LETTER: Kome: Interesting. This does bring up a good question, though. Why, if Florida buys so many textbooks, has Florida consistently ranked so goddamn low in education?

Landfill to create artificial hills so the citizens feel like they are not living in a flat boring hellhole.

Whenever I drive to Gainesville from Orlando to visit my dad (or the opposite trip to return home), there's this stretch of the Turnpike that is incredibly hilly. Every single time I drive it I wonder how the f*ck are there hills in only this area of Florida, but nowhere else in the entire goddamn state. I've driven all around Florida, and nowhere else in this entire state are there hills like this. Oh sure, you get the occasional incline, but it's not a real hill.

From now on, whenever I drive through those area I'm going to be laughing to myself thinking of your comment. Thanks. You've made the boring ass drive to Gainesville a little more exciting.

shocker66s: At least you can agree that evolution could be wrong. Thats good.

There's ALWAYS a chance that a scientific theory could be wrong. After a while, however, it isn't very productive to assume a strongly supported scientific theory, like evolution or gravity, is wrong. After a sufficiently large body of evidence is built that supports that theory, it's a safer bet to assume it's true and go find evidence that it's wrong. That we've yet to find evidence that refutes the theory of evolution is telling of how strongly supported the theory is.

abb3w: shocker66s: Care to retract or do you believe 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, no BS that evolutions is completely and irrefutably correct?

No; it's merely the best explanation that has been proffered so far. Ergo, science. (Much like General Relativity's theory of Gravitation in that respect, which has major problems with Quantum Theory.)

I ask again: would you care to express an opinion as to whether "'P OR Q' is equivalent to 'Q OR P'"?

/troll butternut or cdesign proponentsist pink, hm....

I think you need to mind you P's and Q's. I'm past that "Y or Z"
is that congruent to "Z OR Y"?

Kome: shocker66s: At least you can agree that evolution could be wrong. Thats good.

There's ALWAYS a chance that a scientific theory could be wrong. After a while, however, it isn't very productive to assume a strongly supported scientific theory, like evolution or gravity, is wrong. After a sufficiently large body of evidence is built that supports that theory, it's a safer bet to assume it's true and go find evidence that it's wrong. That we've yet to find evidence that refutes the theory of evolution is telling of how strongly supported the theory is.

I totally agree with your statement. My problem is with the evolution as fact and the fanatics that it brings about when you suggest otherwise. It stops the creative and scientific processes.

abb3w: Kome: Why, if Florida buys so many textbooks, has Florida consistently ranked so goddamn low in education?

"Quantity" does not mean "quality", as the present science standards suggest...

PC LOAD LETTER: Landfill to create artificial hills so the citizens feel like they are not living in a flat boring hellhole.

...although alternative theories might be worth investigating. HTH, HAND.

shocker66s: At least you can agree that evolution could be wrong. Thats good.

Not very wrong, however.

So, can you agree that "'P OR Q' is equivalent to 'Q OR P'"?

Wrong being the operative word.
Tell you what, I'll take your word on the P's and Q's:)

abb3w: /troll butternut or cdesign proponentsist pink, hm....

The evidence suggests troll butternut. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

shocker66s: "At least you can agree that evolution could be wrong. Thats good."

It can and will be refined, but not overturned. Science is the process of gradually clarifying our image of reality. Evolution is as solidly proven as just about anything possibly can be.

xebeche_tzu: Wake the fark up and stop annoying me.



/Dobbs approved

"Bob" isn't the answer, but NEITHER IS ANYTHING ELSE

subgenius.com

SkinnyHead: Kome: 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.

Vast majority? No. And the fact that creationists embrace intelligent design does not mean that intelligent design is the same as creationism. Atheists go around spouting off about evolution. Does that mean that the theory of evolution is the same as atheism?

Cdesign proponentsists.

SkinnyHead: "Vast majority? No. And the fact that creationists embrace intelligent design does not mean that intelligent design is the same as creationism."

More like 'cdesign proponentsist', right? Intelligent design was proven during the Dover trials to have originated as a repackaging of creationism as science to get it into public schools.

I can provide transcripts and videos if you like.

shocker66s: Kome: shocker66s: At least you can agree that evolution could be wrong. Thats good.

There's ALWAYS a chance that a scientific theory could be wrong. After a while, however, it isn't very productive to assume a strongly supported scientific theory, like evolution or gravity, is wrong. After a sufficiently large body of evidence is built that supports that theory, it's a safer bet to assume it's true and go find evidence that it's wrong. That we've yet to find evidence that refutes the theory of evolution is telling of how strongly supported the theory is.

I totally agree with your statement. My problem is with the evolution as fact and the fanatics that it brings about when you suggest otherwise. It stops the creative and scientific processes.

You have this backwards. The scientific process moves forward by building on things that we've already learned. Insisting on arguing about something that was settled a long time ago is what stops science.

Zamboro: shocker66s: "At least you can agree that evolution could be wrong. Thats good."

It can and will be refined, but not overturned. Science is the process of gradually clarifying our image of reality. Evolution is as solidly proven as just about anything possibly can be.

I agree with you but you are a bit too certain about this issue. Even abb3w agrees that it can be wrong and thus be overturned however remote that might be.

shocker66s: "I totally agree with your statement. My problem is with the evolution as fact and the fanatics that it brings about when you suggest otherwise. It stops the creative and scientific processes."

Holy shiat, I think I know you. You sound identical to someone I've spoken to recently. Do you live in Florida by any chance?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, it's just that it's hard to distinguish between people who believe in what's essentially magic. They all tend to repeat the same few apologetic talking points.

shocker66s: "You are a bit too certain about this issue."

At some point you have to commit to a position. Evolution's sufficiently well supported that it's safe to conclude that it's factually true. It hasn't been proven absolutely, but science doesn't deal in absolutes, it deals in probability. Things can only ever be proven to a probablistic (scientific) standard as the conditions for religious proof/disproof are intentionally impossible to satisfy, so as to protect the idea of God/creationism/etc. from scrutiny.

SkinnyHead: Because Activist Judge Jones relied so heavily on a vacated case to decide Kitzmiller, his decision in Kitzmiller has become worthless.

Activist Judge Jones Activist Judge Jones Activist Judge Jones

Judge Jones was recommended for the case by the side of the ID movement and appointed by President George W Bush, who came out in favor of ID. The deck was stacked in your favor and you still lost, so you're looking for excuses to ignore more evidence. What other decisions has Judge Jones made which you consider to be part of his 'activism'?


If we're going to just add ajectives to peoples names, I'm going to start calling you Anarchist SkinnyHead.

Zamboro: shocker66s: "I totally agree with your statement. My problem is with the evolution as fact and the fanatics that it brings about when you suggest otherwise. It stops the creative and scientific processes."

Holy shiat, I think I know you. You sound identical to someone I've spoken to recently. Do you live in Florida by any chance?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, it's just that it's hard to distinguish between people who believe in what's essentially magic. They all tend to repeat the same few apologetic talking points.

I don't know you and yes I forgive you. I'm not talking magic, I have never mentioned magic. You must be mistaken. Maybe you clicked the wrong button?

PC LOAD LETTER: shocker66s: I agree with you but you are a bit too certain about this issue. Even abb3w agrees that it can be wrong and thus be overturned however remote that might be.

(scrolls up). Where does abb3w say that? I see where he says all ideas have room for refinement, I don't see where he says evolution can be wrong.

You never answered my question: do you think Einstein proved Newton WRONG?

Sry:) Newton thought gravity was a force Einstein said it was an effect of matter on the fabric of space.

Bevets: Farkers are rarely willing to engage my argument.

Your initial argument seems to be that scientists discredit or find god, if there is one (or many), irrelevant. Considering that you have agreed on multiple occasions that science can only be accurate with what we can currently test in a timeline that we can personally see, then it is completely understandable that scientists find god irrelevant. We can't prove god exists, so trying to fit him into equations is pointless, as there are no changes made with his "work," no scientific laws are ever altered from his presence, and the world keeps turning the same way it always has for as long as Man has been keeping records.

Given this statement, you must also agree that having science not include him in equations and findings is the proper way to do things. And religion hasn't really given us a helping hand. No one from religion has gone to science and said, "hey, if you apply this rate as a cosin for god, then you can understand gravity."

So keeping god out of scientific theory is the only way to proceed, until we get better information. And the only way to get better information is to keep learning and growing, the way science does. The way evolution does, both in practice and in revelation.

There, I started a debate. I stopped way short of my mark, but feel free to go ahead.

By the way, on your site claiming to teach me what evolutionism is, you have exactly:
10 subjects,
83 quotes,
3 bible verses,
and 2 sentences of your own which read:
Evolutionism makes God superfluous &
God makes evolutionism superfluous.

And through all of that, I still don't know what you mean by evolutionism and what you are trying to prove from the quotes. When read with inflection in the manner they were supposed to be read, you seem to make points on all sides of the table, constantly proving and disproving your own argument, with quotes a few places away from each other. And for my general information, do you ever update that page? It seems like the same stuff for years. Have you not seen how much NEW evidence and theories there are for evolution in the past few years? Don't you think its time to expand?

shocker66s: "I don't know you and yes I forgive you. I'm not talking magic, I have never mentioned magic. You must be mistaken. Maybe you clicked the wrong button?"

Possibly. I was just guessing as I've yet to find anyone nitpicking evolution whose motivations didn't end up being theistic.

Do you or do you not believe in god? Do you believe in an intelligent creative agency/force/whatever? Do you believe it had some role in the origin and/or development of life? I'm sure you'll have no problem proving your intellectual honesty (and of course clearing up any misunderstandings about your motivations) by answering these questions.

PC LOAD LETTER: shocker66s: I agree with you but you are a bit too certain about this issue. Even abb3w agrees that it can be wrong and thus be overturned however remote that might be.

(scrolls up). Where does abb3w say that? I see where he says all ideas have room for refinement, I don't see where he says evolution can be wrong.

You never answered my question: do you think Einstein proved Newton WRONG?

For the record.

shocker66s: At least you can agree that evolution could be wrong. Thats good.

Not very wrong, however.

SkinnyHead: 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.

Bullshiat. Cite it.

SkinnyHead: "Because Activist Judge Jones relied so heavily on a vacated case to decide Kitzmiller, his decision in Kitzmiller has become worthless."

But he was an evangelical. Appointed by Bush specifically to advance movements like ID. Even he was so compelled as to decide against the 'cdesign propentists'.

What of all the other court cases?

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
Read the U.S. District Court decision in which "balanced treatment" for creationism and evolution in Arkansas public school science classrooms was ruled unconstitutional.

Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in public school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia are provided along with the amicus curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.

Epperson v. Arkansas: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Read the U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled unconstitutional Arkansas's law forbidding the teaching of evolution in state-supported schools.

Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District
California public school teacher John Peloza sued his school district, claiming he should not be required to teach evolution or refrain from teaching about his religious beliefs. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against him on the substantive portions of his claim.

Daniel v. Waters
Biology teachers, parents, and National Association of Biology Teachers sued in 1975 to overturn Tennessee's "balanced treatment" law. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that requiring creationism to be taught and requiring disclaimers about evolution violated the First Amendment. Also included is Steele v. Waters which the Tennessee Supreme Court agreed with the Sixth Circuit.

Wright v. Houston I.S.D.
Houston, Texas, students sued to prevent the school district from teaching evolution, believing it infringed their First Amendment rights. The federal courts dismissed the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be based.

Selman v. Cobb County School District
The decision of the district court striking down a Cobb County, Georgia requirement that a sticker with a disclaimer be placed on all textbooks that discuss evolution. The amicus curiae brief filed by several pro-science organizations is also included.

Hendren v. Campbell
A 1977 decision of an Indiana superior court ruling against a textbook produced by the Creation Research Society. In some respects this case resembles a young-earth creationist version of the Kitzmiller case. Introductory material, links, as well as the full text of the judge's memorandum opinion are provided.



Were they all "activist judges"?

shocker66s: I agree with you but you are a bit too certain about this issue. Even abb3w agrees that it can be wrong and thus be overturned however remote that might be.

He likened the chance of Evolution being overturned to being dealt 24 natural Royal Flushes in Vegas.
The chance of this happening once is

Yes there is a minute, infinitesimal, tiny, chance the core principles of Evolution could be explained by a superior theory, which makes testable accurate falsifiable predictions which better explain aspects of Evolutionary Theory as yet unexplained.


Additionally, if Evolution is incorrect, why are Intelligent Design proponents now saying that ID is "Evolution with a Purpose".

SkinnyHead: "I don't know what a cdesign proponentsist is. Is that some sort of typographical error?"

Watch this. It includes the explanation of why that term is so significant.

I'm seriously interested in seeing what you think when you've watched through the entire thing, assuming you do.

SkinnyHead: "And I can show that the term "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism was used over 100 years ago."

Interesting, let's see it. At any rate, the most recent use of the term was a repackaging of creationism to get it into public schools. Watch the video I linked you to.

Zamboro: shocker66s: "I don't know you and yes I forgive you. I'm not talking magic, I have never mentioned magic. You must be mistaken. Maybe you clicked the wrong button?"

Possibly. I was just guessing as I've yet to find anyone nitpicking evolution whose motivations didn't end up being theistic.

Do you or do you not believe in god? Do you believe in an intelligent creative agency/force/whatever? Do you believe it had some role in the origin and/or development of life? I'm sure you'll have no problem proving your intellectual honesty (and of course clearing up any misunderstandings about your motivations) by answering these questions.

Thats a great question. My answer is simple. The answer is I don't know. There are great arguments on both sides. Logic would dictate that evolution is highly probable but not an absolute and although there is no evidence at all that God or some creator exists there is still a small chance that it does exist. So in short "Who knows". Science will never have all the answers nor will religion.

SkinnyHead: Zamboro: More like 'cdesign proponentsist', right? Intelligent design was proven during the Dover trials to have originated as a repackaging of creationism as science to get it into public schools.

I don't know what a cdesign proponentsist is. Is that some sort of typographical error?

And I can show that the term "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism was used over 100 years ago.

And I bet you can show us how to tie your shoes, too. The point is not when the term developed, but what it means. "Intelligent design" was used to mean exactly the same thing as "creationism" up until the American courts ruled that creationism is not legally allowed to be taught in public school science classes because it is religion. Only then did people start to try and differentiate "creationism" and "intelligent design." Now, "intelligent design" means "*wink wink* not creationism."

shocker66s: "Science will never have all the answers nor will religion."

Science doesn't have all the answers, but it does have the only answers. What facts about our universe has religion ever provided? What technologies have been made possible by applied religion? In what sense does it have any actual answers whatsoever?