Fano:

That debate seriously annoyed me, I remember posting in your defense on that one - and I never understood where his so-called "experience" other than he claimed to have done an archaeological dig or something beat someone who had studied the subject. I remember multiple references to being "spoonfed knowledge" as though real historians don't read primary sources. And without primary sources, you are left with building a time machine.

I figured that he was a perfect example of a variation on the Salem Hypothesis, which ties right back into the topic at hand, evolution.

Have you read anything by T.F.X. Noble?

Nope, sorry.


/Gothic style was named because Enlightenment thinkers thought they were as awful as the Barbarians by that name.
//hope I'm right

You are indeed.

PoopStain: TheWizard: But back to the point. That chart that was posted is as useful for predicting and measuring scientific progress as is my dog's water dish.

You also had the plague. A bit of the "lost" information was due to a massive population loss and a general reversal of life expectancy. Information at the time could only be shared by the written word, which was rare enough when everyone was healthy.

The fall of the Roman Empire had an enormous effect on written record-keeping as well. Essentially, the reach of the church and Italy was collapsing and the inmates were in charge of the asylum. Blame for the Dark Ages on religion is like blaming a CEO for a company failing years after he left. Western Europe was building its own secular empire and routinely destroying the past to pave the way for the future. They even co-opted the papacy a few times to try and establish their own new empire.

If we need someone to blame. It always falls back to plain old human greed.

(I do love it when good discussion comes out of these Fark threads. However, the hilarity of someone with the name Poopstain and TheWizard sometimes overwhelms me.)

/slashies to bring this back to Fark level.

RoxtarRyan: Say they stole a nuke! How would they be delivered? Get 500 fanatics to throw it like a lawn dart? That'll travel maybe... 10 feet.

"PAH-RAISE JEEZUS!!" would be the new stereotypical suicide bomber shout just before going kamikaze.

NittLion78: I'm left with some questions after this one...

It's an empty box.
no cat.
/*phew*
//no general Tsao chicken, either.
///I like-a-de-sauce.

vudukungfu: thinks_on_feet:

/Let them live out their lives in ignorance.
//Let them raise their children to be ignorant.
///Don't move to where they live.
////If they move to where you live, scare them off.

Like Them heathens in Gaza?

I say fark the heathens in Gaza.

I don't care what either side believes, but if a guy wants to lob rockets into my town he should expect me to obliterate his.

Fact is, "religion" is responsible for both sides of that ignorant cluster.

/Oh, and your question was pretty much lame.

willydwonka: PoopStain: OH MY farkING GOD! OH MY farkING GOD!

The goddamn creationists are going to ruin the farking Republican party. Creationists: you're farking retarded. Go fark yourselves, and get the hell out of my political party so some good old-fashioned economic conservatives can start undoing the farking damage you've wrought over the past 20 years. If you want a Jesus party then form a farking Jesus party. Don't bogart mine.

This is so goddamn stupid I get stabby just thinking about it.

THIS.

This is the reason I don't vote for the fiscal conservative party... I'd rather be on the side of a bunch of spend-happy uber-liberal retards than on the side of the far right. I want to vote Republican, but I haven't seen a candidate in years (at least one that made it past the primaries) that wasn't catering to the fanatical right-wingers.

Whew! I was beginning to think I was alone.

+1 for both of you

Sure.

As long as we can place a stick on THEIR foreheads that says: "I'm an ignorant asshole that doesn't even know what a theory is."

PoopStain:

So here's what we're going to do: you're going to go fark yourself, and I'm going to ignore you. I hope you get the herp from a tranny.

My land.
Get off of it.

And the tranny is your daddy.

P00pstain.
waht a handle.

Oh, since no one was there, anything we come up with is a scientific theory? Yay!

My theory is that evil clowns from outer space seeded all planet earth from a special type of fungus evolved on their planet to eat rocks, which are really the turds of stars, which are real living creatures and gods.

I can haz research grant?

ancker: Also, this Bible thing is full of objective facts and evidence. You just choose to believe they are false.

Might want to look into what this word "objective" means...

/Already did the Inigo Montoya thing way back at the start of the thread...

thinks_on_feet:

/Oh, and your question was pretty much lame.

not if your religeon is one of the unified original first nations' religeons.

atomicmask: Your aspect of atheism, let me change it for you.

I like atheists just fine. I honestly just misread your statement as "militant liberal" and not "militant atheist". Sorry for the confusion. All the same, I think everyone should be firm in their convictions, or don't have them. I just wish people would try not to be douchebags about it.

hienekenftw: atomicmask: Militant atheism is the only thing that stands between the future of our nation, and complete ruin at the hands of the religious conservatives. You speak about militant atheists as if we are some evil group that *gasps* wants your children to learn the best science possible and have equal chance to compete for jobs with private school kids who DO get proper science.

the HORRIBLE disgusting vile agenda of militant atheism in america.

Hell, you don't even have to be an atheist to see that ID is not a valid science subject.

All it requires is to not be thick.

You might be setting the bar a little high here. And how can you ask people to follow all those big words?

Evolution IS a theory. Teaching it as fact is just wrong.

ancker: eraser8: ancker: superstition n. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

I prefer Webster's definition: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

In any case, Christianity is certainly superstition...ALL supernatural religions are. And the fact that some people actually believe it doesn't make it any less of a superstition. It is a system of belief that is based on no objective facts or evidence. It is pure invention.

Also, I agree that evolution is improperly taught. But where you seem to want to call it further into question, I would emphasize how strong an idea it really is. Evolution is a fact. It is as much of a fact as gravity. But there is also a theory of evolution, which explains why the fact of evolution holds true. And that's what I'd like to see taught in schools.

Umm, read the Bible buddy. Even throwing out the 'visions' there isn't much that was just 'invented'. The Bible contains stories passed down over thousands of years. Have they changed a bit through translation errors, probably, but that doesn't make them "invented". Also, this Bible thing is full of objective facts and evidence. You just choose to believe they are false.

And sorry, evolution is not a fact. The theory seems sound enough, but having bits of pieces of information doesn't prove the theory.

Say you found a old crumbled and faded piece of parchment with four legible letters remaining. A, P, L, and E...say you even know they go in that order....Say there's a somewhat legible letter between the A and P that looks like a P....One might say with reasonable certainty that the word that existed was APPLE. Most people would even agree. But never can you say without any shadow of doubt that the word wasn't actually AIRPLANE or APPLAUSE. (An R can look like a P for those of you who don't get it)

Until you have all the pieces, nothing is fact, my friend.

Verifiable and falsifiable, my friend, but not reproducible. We don't really have the time frame for it, given the billions of years and the limits on grant funding. Hardly bits and pieces.

Two points: One, evolution is not abiogenesis, so the theory doesn't get in the way of interpretations of the Bible. Two, the Bible provides some ideas on how to organize society and live life. It's not Walter Cronkite telling us how it is. Just sayin'.

ancker: You just choose to believe they are false.

Go and learn something please. It's not 'bits and pieces of information'. It is mountains of corroborative, verifiable, objective evidence. Yes, it is time to understand and accept that evolution is fact. Attempts to undermine the theory are attempts to undermine the principles of science.

Re: your nonsense justification for bible belief - if the bible makes claims of the laws of nature being suspended, ie: miracles and supernatural events, then there is no rational reason to believe it is true, and every reason to consider it false.

The truth is, the laws of nature are constant. They don't get suspended. The majesty of reality is just that - the real miracle is there are no miracles.

mamoru: Fuller: Heh, and also the idea of an atheist worshipping is pretty dumb. What's it supposed to mean, anyway? Haha! You do the same stupid pointless things that we do! Nice argument.

Hey now! I thought we came to a consensus that atheists do indeed have polytheistic worship including, but by no means limited to, such goddesses as Salma Hayek, Monica Bellucci, Melissa Therieau, etc. etc.

Did I miss a memo?

Fair call.

Nice to see that the usual anti-God types like Bevets are here. While pretending to be "Christians" etc, they claim to believe in a wimpy god who is like Jerry Lewis with a bad terrarium project, sticking his finger in there to fix his prior mistakes and the only way he can put animals in the terrarium is to make them in a petri dish first and then air-drop them in.

My god creates fundamental rules of the universe that inevitably lead to what is by processes like evolution.

My god is great. Bevet's god is pathetic.

To be clear, I did not intend to say that all atheists or all theists are know-it-alls, just that there are people who confuse knowledge with belief... and that those people tend to drown out the voices of the more reasonable people. I know plenty of theists (mostly christian) and atheists who are happy to concede that they don't really know how life started, even if they do have some ideas.

To those who say evolution is contrary to theism, I would argue that it is not. Theists believe that god created the heavens and the Earth, yet we still can believe in gravity pulling bunches of dustballs together and those dustballs grabbing more, and eventually forming this lovely chunk of terra we call Earth. Plenty of the know-it-alls would say "hey, you can't reconcile those things" and we say "why not?" Natural Selection is the bees knees, we can see it, but it still leaves a gap as to how life got started in the first place... it does a great job of filling in blanks after life starts and tells us how life diversifies, adapts, and thrives... but it provides us with no beginning (or end, but who really needs an end anyways?). Science can tell us alot of things, and maybe some day it will be able to tell us how life started (lightning into a puddle of chemical goo to form something?)... but for now, we have no real knowledge of how it started, and we have an even more limited understanding of how time itself works, which only complicates the definition of "started"... so for the hardcore atheists, I would offer this... I know you have your beliefs that the universe can only be comprised of what we observe, but at present, we don't know what we're looking at... I would ask only that you limit your stipulating as fact that which is observable and known, not simply what you believe to be the case.

rewind2846: ancker: rewind2846: As long as they put the same disclaimer on every single bible printed from now on.
/fundie morans

Umm, except no one makes you go to Church.
You kinda HAVE to go through science class....

/Jackass.

But you don't have to take biology, which is where these textbooks would be used, shortbus. You can take chemistry and physics instead, like I did.

Too easy. Must be one of them there fundies.

Actually, I was required to take Biology. And a quick Google Search tells me most of the states require it. California as an example: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/hsgrtable.asp

State Requirement for High School Graduation:
Science: Two years, including biological and physical sciences.

Sorry it wasn't as easy as it seemed for you....Maybe next time.

Fuller: Yeesh. Again, evolution is as proven as anything. We're talking mountains of evidence.

You can actually do experiments in a laboratory environment to prove the theory of evolution via natural selection. We did it with bacteria and antibiotic resistance, IIRC.

In response to that a creationist/IDer will try and tell you that there is a difference between "microevolution" and "macroevoltuion" but that's really just a rationalization.

I can't speak for everyone, but in my HS Biology class we learned that abiogenesis and evolution are two very different things and that no one has sucessfully conducted an experiment to prove or disprove any theories related to it.

vudukungfu: When the last pucker mouthed bible thumping cornholing holier than thou backwater rednecked book burning Orwellian asshat from the south dies, if no one is around to hear his neck snap from a high branch in the swamp, and no one hears it, will it matter?

Such eloquence I've not heard since the last pentecostal revival I attended. Are you sure you aren't related?

just don't forget; Mississippi is the dumbest state.

Broz_Tito: attackingpencil:

There are very few medievalists who would agree with you that the Dark Ages exist. Even if you were right, the instability in society in the Early Middle Ages (what you'd call the Dark Ages) was caused (mainly) by the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the subsequent collapse of the political and economic structure, constant invasions and a massive plague in the 6th century didn't help much either.

Also, since you'd be hard pressed to find wrongs that the Church committed toward science in an era before science actually existed, I imagine that the Church was apologizing for the wrong doings of the Renaissance/Reformation time period.

I am not talking just about Church, all Abrahamic religions. Even if they didn't cause the decline and halt of the progress they contributed(a lot).

Also science existed since the first cavemen used tools to create fire.

What we call science today, certainly has not existed forever. The idea of experimentation, testing hypothesis, and whatnot was not a real concept in earlier thought. Go read Aristotle: "why does a stone fall? Because it's in the nature of a stone to fall. Next Question" That's why the later Middle Ages' partial rejection of Aristotle and the wholesale rejection (insert qualifiers here about exactly how wholesale it was) of the Greeks in Reformation really kick started science. They needed to eliminate the idea that the supreme authority was ancient, well, authority, rather than what you can actually prove in a lab. By the way, if this topic interests you check out the book Revolutionizing the Sciences by Grant. It's short and a pretty good intro to the subject.

As to your claims that Abrahamic religion holds back progress I'd counter 1.) then why haven't the regions without these religions surpassed us in scientific development? and 2.) I'd argue that religion and science aren't mutually opposed concepts. Instead, religion, like all ideologies, sometimes opposes and sometimes complements scientific development (see Communism and genetics for a non-religious ideology restricting scientific development). Since, it seems like it would be impossible to have a human race without ideology, it seems unlikely that you'll ever get rid of the problem of ideology restricting science. Hell, look at the global warming controversy today, not religiously motivated but there's a lot of ideology in there trying to hold back science.

and I apologize but I need to go to bed, I enjoyed discussing with you mainly because you didn't attack me for learning things from books, like the last guy who I tried to talk about this stuff with.

sseye: My god creates fundamental rules of the universe that inevitably lead to what is by processes like evolution.

Then your god is simply nature, and there's no need to call nature god..

RoxtarRyan: shivashakti: RoxtarRyan: They'll need the people with launch codes and such. Wouldn't happen. Say they stole a nuke! How would they be delivered? Get 500 fanatics to throw it like a lawn dart? That'll travel maybe... 10 feet.

Given the intelligence of the people we're talking about, that's not beyond the scope of reason...

Well, I'm not taking into account some of the ones that are "retard strong". The kinds that are dumber than bricks, but are strong enough to pry apart Colista Flockheart like a grilled cheese sandwich.

That's a poor analogy. My cat could tear her apart. My neighbour's three-year-old could tear her apart. Harsh language could collapse her lungs.

willydwonka: atomicmask: Your aspect of atheism, let me change it for you.

I like atheists just fine. I honestly just misread your statement as "militant liberal" and not "militant atheist". Sorry for the confusion. All the same, I think everyone should be firm in their convictions, or don't have them. I just wish people would try not to be douchebags about it.

I wish so also, but I hardly consider standing up for my rights and the well being of my country being a douchebag. If that happens to mean steping on a religious persons toes and shattering his aspect of "truth" then so be it. That, to me, is what gets labeled militant atheism. When an atheist is overt with his intentions and upfront with his cause. "Ohh look out here comes a militant atheist, going to ruin it for everybody with his hatred of baby jesus!"

I dont care what you worship, I dont care if you kneel to an alter of toilets and worship the toilet duck, it doesnt concern me. It does concern me when you have to display your god on government buildings, and put up things like "ONE NATION, UNDER GOD!" that clearly alienates those who do not believe in god. I do care when your god demands we sell our nations future short because his creation story is riddled with holes and science has a different answer.

That is why I am militant, because we are not just craping away our own future and knowledge, we are trying to unravel the chance future generations will have.

ancker: And sorry, evolution is not a fact.

It really is. "The theory of evolution" is a misnomer. The theories are describing the mechanism by which evolution happened. "Natural Selection" is the generally agreed upon theory.

CDP: ancker: eraser8:
Won't the evangelical-activist religionists ever stop trying to handicap our children with loose-brained superstition?

In all fairness, it's only superstition to those who don't believe it. The basis of Christianity is passed down either directly from person to person, or from God through visions or direct speaking.

superstition n. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

According to Christianity, God created Adam and Eve in the form of a current human. To Christians, Evolution is a superstition as it doesn't logically relate to how humans populated the earth. Because YOU don't believe it, doesn't make it a superstition. The same goes for the inverse. No one knows with absolute certainly, we all only have our beliefs, be it science or religion. (Though both sides will argue certainty)

---

To all of you saying Evolution never meant to prove the beginning of life, you're right. But every science book I've read explains that "life just somehow happened (first single-celled organism).....then evolution took over." It's kind of hard to say they don't go hand in hand. If you believe in evolution, you can't believe in creationism, and vice versa. Hence the issue.

---

I don't think creationism should be taught in school, but I don't think evolution should be taught how it is either. Kids are taught what a theory is and how it can't really be proven, but on the next page are taught the 'theory' of evolution as absolute fact. If taught honestly as a theory, most religious types would have MUCH less issue with the subject.

Do you know the definition of a scientific theory?

You know google can be your friend.


Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility.

Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism).

Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs
Link (new window)

Read some of my other posts, I never said it shouldn't be taught in school. But I stand by my statement that evolution is not a fact.

attackingpencil: then why haven't the regions without these religions surpassed us in scientific development? a

Like Japan?

Fundies will consider this a "win", scientists should really have no problem with such a statement and the rest of you farkers are going to blow things out of proportion in an effort to prove your own ignorance.

Everyone's happy.

We just need some term other than 'theory'. It gets people confused to realize that what they think of as a theory, we would call a hypothesis.

Splunge?

sseye: My god creates fundamental rules of the universe that inevitably lead to what is by processes like evolution.

My god is great. Bevet's god is pathetic.

Bevet's god will die out and be replaced by your god that is much more well suited to the knowledge modern humanity possesses.

Broz_Tito: attackingpencil:

There are very few medievalists who would agree with you that the Dark Ages exist. Even if you were right, the instability in society in the Early Middle Ages (what you'd call the Dark Ages) was caused (mainly) by the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the subsequent collapse of the political and economic structure, constant invasions and a massive plague in the 6th century didn't help much either.

Also, since you'd be hard pressed to find wrongs that the Church committed toward science in an era before science actually existed, I imagine that the Church was apologizing for the wrong doings of the Renaissance/Reformation time period.

I am not talking just about Church, all Abrahamic religions. Even if they didn't cause the decline and halt of the progress they contributed(a lot).

Also science existed since the first cavemen used tools to create fire.

The institutionalization of the Christian church into Roman society coupled with the deteriorating ability of the military to protect the limes led to the churches taking over regional authority in many places of the former Western Roman Empire. With this came decentralization, deurbanization and a general decline in technology, architecture, trade, literature/literacy, medicine and an increase in superstition and, yes, the beginnings of religious warfare, or at the very least using religion as an excuse for conquest.

I consider them worse times to live in than what preceded them mostly because there was little a person could do to break out of their social and economic caste. Social mobility, though difficult and slow, was possible in Roman society through service to the state if one were a citizen or even to a degree a freedman. IMO living in western Europe from about 400-900 CE is one of the shiattiest times and places to live.

Actually, because there is no one alive who witnessed what occurred on any of the 9/11 flights, whatever happened there is theory as well. I think it was the magnetic attraction of the twin towers.

Just think, we invaded two countries, killed over 100,000 people, will spend trillions on a theory.

ancker: Read some of my other posts, I never said it shouldn't be taught in school. But I stand by my statement that evolution is not a fact.

Then you are displaying dogma in the face of a reality that contradicts you.