RoxtarRyan: Well, seeing as how Bevets isn't going to address the posts I made using quotes made directly by him located on his website listed in his Fark profile, I'm going to get drunk and watch Back to the Future. Perhaps the Doc can show me evidence of evolution using the awesome DeLorean.

GREAT SCOTT!

ancker: 1) Why people decide it's worth their time trying to convince the religious of their 'Ignorant ways.' Wouldn't your time be better spent in the lab INVENTING MY FLYING CAR ALREADY?

Because if we don't speak up, disclaimers get put in textbooks, the "controversy" is taught, intelligent design is snuck into classes, and before you know it the next generation is being raised thinking "God did it" is a valid scientific theory.

Today's scientists may not be able to give you a flying car. But if you want tomorrow's scientists to have a good shot, they need a good grounding in science, which they're not going to get if the creationists get their way.

2) Why do Evolutionists claim all of this data proves a fact, then turn around and say the amount of time for Evolution to take place isn't even fathomable by humans. How can it be fathomable enough to prove a fact in your mind, but not enough to explain the intricacies?

It's a matter of scale.

We've witnessed countless instances of speciation, where one species becomes two, and can no longer interbreed. Creationists come back with the old saw "that's microevolution. I don't have a problem with that, but macroevolution is impossible."

Their definition of macroevolution (which is not the one used by scientists) posits that "big" changes, like a fish evolving into a mammal, are impossible. It's akin to saying that no matter how many inches you add up, they'll never equal a mile. In their terminology, microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, just different scales.

That said, we have mountains of evidence supporting evolution. We know it happens, and everything we've uncovered in the lab and in the fossil record validates the theory. However, the scale involved in evolving critters from fish to humans is immense, on the order of hundreds of millions of years.

Personally, I think creationists have such a hard time with it because they have trouble thinking in terms of anything bigger than 6000 years.

"
"Under God" is wrong in the pledge is wrong, but well-intentioned. If you don't like that part, I would recommend just not saying it. If anyone asks you why, tell them. Maybe if enough people dissent, it will change, but remember, democracy is a motherfarker. If 60% of America approves of it, you're pretty much farked. Good luck convincing them to change it.
"


Hence why we have the bill of rights. That way, the majority CANNOT legally force its will on you.

Gotta run kids. Parting words:

If you're not convinced evolution is a fact, READ MORE

VonAether: Their definition of macroevolution (which is not the one used by scientists) posits that "big" changes, like a fish evolving into a mammal, are impossible. It's akin to saying that no matter how many inches you add up, they'll never equal a mile. In Using their terminology, microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, just different scales.

FTFM. Obviously, creationists don't consider them the same thing.

Fuller
In fact, there is so much evidence along these lines that I can only assume you need to read more.

i'll do that. but i can't promise it will do any good. ^.^

I see nothing wrong with making it clear that evolution is a theory. It is taught like it is fact and it is not proven fact. Teach it, fine, but it IS a theory. That sticker or stamp or disclaimer does not harm, just tells the truth.

lrosu79: Isn't that why they call it the theory of evolution?

I am tired of floating around the damn room. I wish there was a better theory of gravity.

//whoah...that's heavy

Why no disclaimer on the Bible - which is not even a theory, but, from an objective point of view, illogical nonsense?

cptdon: I see nothing wrong with making it clear that evolution is a theory. It is taught like it is fact and it is not proven fact. Teach it, fine, but it IS a theory. That sticker or stamp or disclaimer does not harm, just tells the truth.

If it's not being used specifically to undermine credibility then why does it not mention a single other theory?

RoxtarRyan: Sodium Benzoate: GREAT SCOTT!

ONE POINT TWENTY ONE JIGGAWATTS?!?!??!

But hey now... if you're going to post the collection of Bevets quotes I found to your profile, cool, but at least give me credit! I killed about an hour at work digging through the shiat he has on his site!

Ah so that was you. Many congrats, I plan on using them out of context to continue to bury his already nonexistent credibility all for my own selfish pleasure AND NO GOD HAS THE BALLS TO STOP ME MUWA HA HA HA!

cptdon: I see nothing wrong with making it clear that evolution is a theory. It is taught like it is fact and it is not proven fact. Teach it, fine, but it IS a theory. That sticker or stamp or disclaimer does not harm, just tells the truth.

The problem comes from the part that wants students to keep an open mind about other possible explanations to the origin of life - which refers, obviously, to the Old Testament. The reason this is particularly frustrating is because from a scientific point of view, the explanation of the Old Testament is bullshiat. Maybe from a religious point of view, that is acceptable. It is a "matter of faith" - but faith has no place in science. In religion you're given conclusions and told to find evidence. In science you're given evidence and told to find conclusions. Which is why it is ridiculous when you put religious theories and scientific theories together.

Evolution is a theory, but the implications of it are science. Genetics are absolutely integral to an understanding of science and any school that does not provide a solid foundation of genetics is epic fail.

Disclaimers are not necessary because it should be obvious to anyone with even the smallest knowledge of genetics or evolution that they don't explain fundamental questions such as how life was started in the first place. If you accept the theory of evolution as unqualified truth then you are no different from the person who accepts creationism as unqualified truth. The only truth is that no one knows for sure.

CaptainJuan: Noam Chimpsky: What is the current consensus on abiogenesis in the non-creationist community? It used to be the "primordial soup" theory where life developed terrestrially, but I've recently heard a lot of talk about extra-terrestrial origins for life on earth.

Then where did that extra-terrestrial life come from?

Just like how an infinite number of typing monkeys could reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare, it is not at all improbable that an infinite number of natural events will eventually cause inorganic matters to turn into life. It is beyond our understanding at the moment - but so were a lot of things in the past.

cptdon: I see nothing wrong with making it clear that evolution is a theory. It is taught like it is fact and it is not proven fact. Teach it, fine, but it IS a theory. That sticker or stamp or disclaimer does not harm, just tells the truth.


But if you're going to go down that road, then the sticker belongs on *all* science books, because everything that we teach as "fact" in science classes is based on theories that are not **100%** complete and proven, and are subject to being replaced or absorbed into a better theory at some later date. Good scientists know this, and it's an unspoken assumption in *any* scientific discussion.

We teach gravity as a fact, but the truth is, we're not positive what *causes* it. It is an inherent property of matter? Is it a result of deformations in spacetime near objects with mass? We don't know, but that shouldn't force us to add "of course, this is just a theory" to every discussion regarding gravitation.

Noam Chimpsky: What is the current consensus on abiogenesis in the non-creationist community? It used to be the "primordial soup" theory where life developed terrestrially, but I've recently heard a lot of talk about extra-terrestrial origins for life on earth.

Experiments have shown that some large organic molecules can assemble copies from surrounding matter. (In fact, this is the same mechanism observed in DNA replication.) This is due to chance characteristics of certain arrangements of molecular elements. Mathematically, such arrangements are less likely to occur randomly than other arrangements that would not result in replication. But given enough time, any and probably nearly all chance arrangements should occur.

One theory of genesis is that such random assemblies naturally propagated in environments rich in building materials, and some were found more survivable than others -- both in their environment and against other replicators in the same environment, as all replicators would be inclined to rob matter from others. This would then be the earliest natural selection. Competition increased as more matter was used up for replication, resulting in more sophisticated and more survivable structures -- again, through random change over sufficient time.

From this, pretty much everything we associate with living organisms emerges: increasingly sophisticated structures survive where others fail, 'eating' develops from the tendency to rob matter from other structures, even gender develops from these very early stages of organic matter, as a binary strategy for attracting other organisms.

'Genes' are not a single defined thing, but a body of durable patterns of smaller molecular patterns that persist over multiple generations. Genes interact with each other in given molecular contexts of other genes to produce various effects in the whole organism. Effects which enhance the survivability of their causative molecular patterns compared to others tend to pass on, while less survivable patterns do not.

This model is easy to describe and all but its earliest phases can be inferred or observed in existing organisms and experiments, though those earlier phases can be comfortably extrapolated backwards. And it also has the convenience of being entirely consistent with everything else we know so far.

The big problem people have with it is not scientific, but aesthetic and visceral: It describes a system in which there is no sudden spark of life from out of nowhere, but a gradual development from crude organic molecules from randomly assembled matter to more complex organisms over a long time. It also uncomfortably deconstructs most traditional notions of what defines 'life' -- or rather, notions that attempt to differentiate 'life' from 'non-living' matter.

But that may prove necessary if we're to understand the origins of life. There is no logical or scientific reason why 'life' must appear suddenly, or that its origins must match our popular definitions of what life must or must not be -- just as we had to adjust to the idea of many elements, not just an aesthetically pleasing and emotionally comforting five.

In the end, what we call 'life' may be no more than sophisticated random replication. This is the biogenetic theory described as part of the 'selfish gene' model of evolution, which focuses on the blind, mindless 'ambition' of replicating patterns of matter, as a consequence of eons of random, blind selection. In this view, whole organisms and species are not important, only the survival of the genes themselves. An animal's suffering or happiness are irrelevant, as long as the genes pass on.

For the faithful, this also has the inconvenient consequence of easily explaining seemingly random illness, suffering, and death, as well as all human foibles, failings, and evil.

PoopStain:



/your Youtube channel sucks.

Unlike you, I'm not a stalker.
Just a person.

My land. get off of it.

Fano

Tectonic plate theory was ridiculed at one point.
and? now we have observable evidence of drift. that's enough for me to accept it as fact, unless it's falsified by some other *observations.* and creationism is the idea being ridiculed here. :D i don't think we (the scientific community) will ever get to that point with creationism.

Your bolded print? You just said, blah blah blah science, it's easier to say a wizard did it. (not a member of the anti-sky wizard committee)
i'm not sure it's easier, really. it would be much, much easier for me to drop God out of the equation completely than it is to try to fit him into the scientific frame. i have to go the other way, and fit science into my God-frame, and i think that's where so many of the problems start. it's a fundamentally different view. my starting premise will always be different.

People that believe in God can still acknowledge the processes occuring on Earth. And evolution is occurring.
i do acknowledge them. i see erosion. i see cave formations growing. i see the and understand that our climate is in flux, looking at the data and pictures going back. but i deny that large-scale evolution (not genetic drift or anything, goodness), as taught, is happening.

tangled_slinky: this is what makes me mad. people get so attached to theories- scientific theories- that they make it fact. phlogiston was just as accepted back in the day, you know.

Until it was debunked with primitive 18th century science.

Meanwhile evolution has only been strengthened by the hundred years of testing, including DNA analysis of thousands of living and extinct species.

i accept the tectonic plate theory because we *see* it, measure it. i don't see mountains of evidence for evolution, and even less for abiogenesis (which should be kept out of science classrooms, i think, since it isn't observable or repeatable or any of that cool stuff). i see in the fossil record lots of dead things we don't have any more, and then stuff from not so long ago that we do still have, with very clear breaks inbetween. no species drifting into 5 other ones, just gradual changes within a species that stays recognizable. whoo.

Either you're lying by implication that you've done any research on the subject, or you've barely looked at anything.



If five minutes of Googling "transitional fossils" doesn't make you retract that statement then your mind is more narrow than you claim/think.

i do try to keep an open mind, but if you tell me giraffes and welwitschia both eventually developed from a bubble generated by a hydrothermal vent, i'll laugh.

That straw man looks like the corpse of Helen Keller built it.

you can laugh at me for thinking my sky man did it all in an undisclosed amount of time, but it makes more sense than what my textbooks and teachers told me was true.

How?

Herunar: cptdon: I see nothing wrong with making it clear that evolution is a theory. It is taught like it is fact and it is not proven fact. Teach it, fine, but it IS a theory. That sticker or stamp or disclaimer does not harm, just tells the truth.

The problem comes from the part that wants students to keep an open mind about other possible explanations to the origin of life - which refers, obviously, to the Old Testament. The reason this is particularly frustrating is because from a scientific point of view, the explanation of the Old Testament is bullshiat. Maybe from a religious point of view, that is acceptable. It is a "matter of faith" - but faith has no place in science. In religion you're given conclusions and told to find evidence. In science you're given evidence and told to find conclusions. Which is why it is ridiculous when you put religious theories and scientific theories together.

Just because, they, you or I, feel that is their intent does not change the fact that the statement is true and of no harm.

As for faith having no place in science I can't agree. Faith plays a large part in science. Maybe not a faith in God but faith in what you believe may be right and a hope that your theories hold true and that your opinions become known as fact...

Now if they were to mandate that evolution be excluded and only theology be taught I would understand the outrage. Truth be told there is no hard science to prove any of it. That is why I study practical Science. Stuff I can observe in the here and now. Other can feel free to have fun with that other stuff.

Either way no harm is done.

RoxtarRyan: Sodium Benzoate: Ah so that was you. Many congrats, I plan on using them out of context to continue to bury his already nonexistent credibility all for my own selfish pleasure AND NO GOD HAS THE BALLS TO STOP ME MUWA HA HA HA!

Yep. I've saved all of his statements made on his website in case he took it down (you know.. being embarrassed for admitting that he is wrong and all). I still haven't read through them all yet... I can only read that crap for so long before I want to kill off an endangered species.

Oh no don't do that. Since evolution is all a big scam and every species was materialized over the course of a day that means there are only so many species. If you extinct too many the food web will collapse and there won't be anything left but us, germs and probably house cats.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: This model is easy to describe and all but its earliest phases can be inferred or observed in existing organisms and experiments, though those earlier phases can be comfortably extrapolated backwards. And it also has the convenience of being entirely consistent with everything else we know so far.

Phew, since it's consistent with everything we know so far, I'm glad we don't even have to look for your macromolecules.

ScottRiqui: cptdon: I see nothing wrong with making it clear that evolution is a theory. It is taught like it is fact and it is not proven fact. Teach it, fine, but it IS a theory. That sticker or stamp or disclaimer does not harm, just tells the truth.


But if you're going to go down that road, then the sticker belongs on *all* science books, because everything that we teach as "fact" in science classes is based on theories that are not **100%** complete and proven, and are subject to being replaced or absorbed into a better theory at some later date. Good scientists know this, and it's an unspoken assumption in *any* scientific discussion.

We teach gravity as a fact, but the truth is, we're not positive what *causes* it. It is an inherent property of matter? Is it a result of deformations in spacetime near objects with mass? We don't know, but that shouldn't force us to add "of course, this is just a theory" to every discussion regarding gravitation.

True, but, we can simulate gravity. So we have a working model. So for gravity I will go out on a limb ;)

Can one of you help my girlfriend out with her college geology homework? Both of us are science illiterate. heres the question "Along a convergent tectonic boundry, we thrust a 20 km thick slab of continental crust on top of 40 kn thick continental crust, will the elevation of the land surface increase by 20 kms?" The teacher gave her a hint that does not help me at all... "think about what would happen when you place one iceberg on top of another"

How is it some people can't get it straight, evolution is the phenomenon, the theory of it, explains it. Even if the theory were wrong, you'd still have the thing itself. And if you don't think evolution happens, have fun explaining drug resistant bacterial strains.

cptdon: Herunar: cptdon: I see nothing wrong with making it clear that evolution is a theory. It is taught like it is fact and it is not proven fact. Teach it, fine, but it IS a theory. That sticker or stamp or disclaimer does not harm, just tells the truth.

The problem comes from the part that wants students to keep an open mind about other possible explanations to the origin of life - which refers, obviously, to the Old Testament. The reason this is particularly frustrating is because from a scientific point of view, the explanation of the Old Testament is bullshiat. Maybe from a religious point of view, that is acceptable. It is a "matter of faith" - but faith has no place in science. In religion you're given conclusions and told to find evidence. In science you're given evidence and told to find conclusions. Which is why it is ridiculous when you put religious theories and scientific theories together.

Just because, they, you or I, feel that is their intent does not change the fact that the statement is true and of no harm.

As for faith having no place in science I can't agree. Faith plays a large part in science. Maybe not a faith in God but faith in what you believe may be right and a hope that your theories hold true and that your opinions become known as fact...

Now if they were to mandate that evolution be excluded and only theology be taught I would understand the outrage. Truth be told there is no hard science to prove any of it. That is why I study practical Science. Stuff I can observe in the here and now. Other can feel free to have fun with that other stuff.

Either way no harm is done.

It's about creating a wedge. It's subversive and dishonest.

They're not talking about labeling the "theory" of gravity, or the "theory" of heliocentrism, they're only focusing on evolution because they want to plant seeds of doubt about its validity, something they're unable to do scientifically because it is just as (if not more) valid than those other "theories".

It is a fact that animals change and adapt to better survive in their environment. Undeniable fact that has been observed countless times. The theory is that this change occurs through a combination of natural selection (survival of the fittest) and random mutation.

That's the simplified version. The biologists that frequent these topics can give a much more complicated and accurate presentation.

Evolution is a fact. Natural selection and random mutation are theories to explain the fact of evolution.

0Icky0: cptdon: I see nothing wrong with making it clear that evolution is a theory.

Sure, as long as the teaches teaches the kids what a scientific theory is.
Your teacher either did not do that, or you were exploring your nose at the time.

No teacher taught and I know. I also know that evolution is bad theory.

I applaud this move. Evolution is so obviously a lie to anyone with a brain. It should be obvious to anyone that we were CREATED as we are now. Evolution is a load of crap.

I want all 50 states to start with these warnings, but move on to more extreme measures in the future. We cannot allow our youth to be influenced by these "scientists." I mean, do you REALLY think that a piece of spaghetti can turn into a person if you wait long enough? The idea is CRAZY!

Educate yourselves

vudukungfu: Unlike you, I'm not a stalker.
Just a person.

Me too. You gave me lip for no reason. NO reason. You even assumed I was religious. That makes you an asshole.

Google your handle, you show up. It's that farking easy. I'm not stalking you, I was actually trying to find out the nomenclature of your Fark name so I could so the same thing you did: insult someone for their handle.

/your channel still sucks.

WhyteRaven74: How is it some people can't get it straight, evolution is the phenomenon, the theory of it, explains it. Even if the theory were wrong, you'd still have the thing itself. And if you don't think evolution happens, have fun explaining drug resistant bacterial strains.



/oblig

runaway06: will the elevation of the land surface increase by 20 kms?

No it wouldn't.

cptdon: I also know that evolution is bad theory

If you new what a theory is, you wouldn't be calling evolution a theory. You be calling the theory of evolution a bad one.

runaway06: Can one of you help my girlfriend out with her college geology homework?

Send her over, but if I'm persuasive enough, there's no guarantee that you'll be getting her back.

"Igneous rock formation goes where?"

Dan the Schman: cptdon: Herunar: cptdon: I see nothing wrong with making it clear that evolution is a theory. It is taught like it is fact and it is not proven fact. Teach it, fine, but it IS a theory. That sticker or stamp or disclaimer does not harm, just tells the truth.

The problem comes from the part that wants students to keep an open mind about other possible explanations to the origin of life - which refers, obviously, to the Old Testament. The reason this is particularly frustrating is because from a scientific point of view, the explanation of the Old Testament is bullshiat. Maybe from a religious point of view, that is acceptable. It is a "matter of faith" - but faith has no place in science. In religion you're given conclusions and told to find evidence. In science you're given evidence and told to find conclusions. Which is why it is ridiculous when you put religious theories and scientific theories together.

Just because, they, you or I, feel that is their intent does not change the fact that the statement is true and of no harm.

As for faith having no place in science I can't agree. Faith plays a large part in science. Maybe not a faith in God but faith in what you believe may be right and a hope that your theories hold true and that your opinions become known as fact...

Now if they were to mandate that evolution be excluded and only theology be taught I would understand the outrage. Truth be told there is no hard science to prove any of it. That is why I study practical Science. Stuff I can observe in the here and now. Other can feel free to have fun with that other stuff.

Either way no harm is done.

It's about creating a wedge. It's subversive and dishonest.

They're not talking about labeling the "theory" of gravity, or the "theory" of heliocentrism, they're only focusing on evolution because they want to plant seeds of doubt about its validity, something they're unable to do scientifically because it is just as (if not more) valid than those other "theories".

It is a fact that animals change and adapt to better survive in their environment. Undeniable fact that has been observed countless times. The theory is that this change occurs through a combination of natural selection (survival of the fittest) and random mutation.

That's the simplified version. The biologists that frequent these topics can give a much more complicated and accurate presentation.

Evolution is a fact. Natural selection and random mutation are theories to explain the fact of evolution.

Wrong. Natural selection and mutations are the observable facts. Evolution is as far as we know science fiction.

cptdon: ScottRiqui: cptdon: I see nothing wrong with making it clear that evolution is a theory. It is taught like it is fact and it is not proven fact. Teach it, fine, but it IS a theory. That sticker or stamp or disclaimer does not harm, just tells the truth.


But if you're going to go down that road, then the sticker belongs on *all* science books, because everything that we teach as "fact" in science classes is based on theories that are not **100%** complete and proven, and are subject to being replaced or absorbed into a better theory at some later date. Good scientists know this, and it's an unspoken assumption in *any* scientific discussion.

We teach gravity as a fact, but the truth is, we're not positive what *causes* it. It is an inherent property of matter? Is it a result of deformations in spacetime near objects with mass? We don't know, but that shouldn't force us to add "of course, this is just a theory" to every discussion regarding gravitation.

True, but, we can simulate gravity. So we have a working model. So for gravity I will go out on a limb ;)


But it's the same for *all* scientific knowledge. Look at Newton's Laws of Motion - for hundreds of years, they perfectly explained just about 100% of observed results, because the observations were on the human scale ( "flying rocks and sliding blocks", as my physics professors called it.)

But we know now that Newton's Laws fall apart horribly at very large velocities (relativity), and over very small distances (quantum mechanics). Does that mean we were wrong to teach Newton's laws without specifically identifying them as theories? Of course not, because scientists (including Newton himself) knew that there was every likelihood that a more complete theory would come along later. As such, we don't need to specifically remind people that certain scientific ideas are "only theories" - they're ALL "only theories", and scientists know this.

WhyteRaven74:
If you new what a theory is, you wouldn't be calling evolution a theory. You be calling the theory of evolution a bad one.


It appears you need to revisit 8th grade Science and English.

eraser8: cptdon: I also know that evolution is bad theory.

What are you basing that on?

The Sun God Viagra told me... I am basing it on my opinion, based on others facts

/Honest

Gyrfalcon: No, it's pretty obvious why YOU would have a problem with that last part, Grand Inquisitor. Your idea of an "open mind" begins with "Our Father" and ends with "Amen". No one was present when you were conceived, so how do we know you're not just a theory? (Unless there was someone inside your mommy's womb, no one can prove to me you're not some gross nightmare)

Anyway, I don't have trouble with the last part. I have trouble with everything that comes in front of it.

If you post with hasty anger; he has already won.