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.

(Dallas News)   Jesus will not be riding his dinosaur in Texas   (dallasnews.com) divider line 908
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

26979 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2009 at 9:02 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



908 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-26 09:18:19 PM  
The Southern Dandy: The war between science and religion has been over for 500 years. Science won. That's why we no longer live in the dark ages and we're able to communicate with each other over the internet.

The only reason there is a debate about science and religion now is because the religious right has been shot down by the constitution over and over again in their attempt to get religion into our public schools, so now they dishonestly try to repackage their religion as "science" in an attempt to shoe horn it into public schools.

In the end all they've accomplished is to expose their ignorance and dishonesty.

Please keep your religion and it's inherent ignorance and dishonesty in your own homes and places of worship.


Science without religion is bound to kill you. Remember, the biggest reason for our problems today is a lack of shame and honor - you know, the little angel on your shoulder named morality. That's the direct result of the assault on common sense taking place daily by lawyers, people who exist and prosper only if others suffer and feel anger.
 
2009-03-26 09:18:34 PM  
DeadZone: So, if they want to show "strengths and weaknesses" then they'll show the weaknesses of intelligent design, right?

right?


Nope.

Old text:
"The student is expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."

New text:
"The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing"

ID isn't a scientific explanation. So under the old text they wouldn't need to show its strength or weaknesses.
 
2009-03-26 09:19:32 PM  
i116.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 09:20:08 PM  
Space_Fetus: Wow, way to crush the hopes of children all over Texas. Why don't you just go ahead and tell them Santa Claus isn't real while you're at it. Way to go, horriblepersonmitter!

Crushing hopes?
By not taxing the hell out of business and creating jobs?
You really don't get it, do you? Obviously you don't. Texas and Crushed Hope sit on opposite ends of the bench.
 
2009-03-26 09:21:18 PM  
Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: The dollars being printed by the government are creating government jobs. Not good if you aren't in the club and have no desire to be in the club. We are going to need to downsize the federal government in earnest or there's going to be big problems. Hopefully if it comes to that, the one plank of the federal government, the military, will be ready to set things right. That's no sure thing anymore though if the democrats go through with their plan to create a domestic praetorian guard to defend their privilege.

5/10. Way too obvious.
 
2009-03-26 09:21:41 PM  
Bloody William: You/they could have just written "tautology" and saved on bandwidth.

It's not even a tautology; it's a fallacy:

1. If A, then B (if life were created intelligently, it would be complex)
2. B (life is complex)
3. Therefore, A (life was created intelligently)

By the same argument: If Michael Jordan were President, he would be famous. Michael Jordan is famous. Therefore Michael Jordan is President.
 
2009-03-26 09:21:46 PM  
Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: Space_Fetus: Wow, way to crush the hopes of children all over Texas. Why don't you just go ahead and tell them Santa Claus isn't real while you're at it. Way to go, horriblepersonmitter!

Crushing hopes?
By not taxing the hell out of business and creating jobs?
You really don't get it, do you? Obviously you don't. Texas and Crushed Hope sit on opposite ends of the bench.


I guess not. *sigh* on the plus side I GIS'd "God did it" and came across this gem on the first page no less. Enjoy!

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2009-03-26 09:22:30 PM  
scienceblogs.com
 
2009-03-26 09:22:36 PM  
Bloody William:
1: Complex things are intelligently designed.
2: We can prove things are intelligently designed by looking at how complex they are.
3: Things are complex.
4: Things are intelligently designed.


5: God is complex.
6: Who/What Designed God?
 
2009-03-26 09:23:33 PM  
This is a great day in the state of Texas!
 
2009-03-26 09:23:42 PM  
CDP:
Wow, when did Richard Dawkins become a zoologist? That's a spectacular job of taking a quote out of context as well. Not only is your argument baseless, it's wrong.
 
2009-03-26 09:24:20 PM  
Space_Fetus: 1.bp.blogspot.com

Beyond creepy.
 
2009-03-26 09:25:05 PM  
ibanezdude: i116.photobucket.com

I love that card.
 
2009-03-26 09:25:38 PM  
ne2d: Bloody William: You/they could have just written "tautology" and saved on bandwidth.

It's not even a tautology; it's a fallacy:

1. If A, then B (if life were created intelligently, it would be complex)
2. B (life is complex)
3. Therefore, A (life was created intelligently)

By the same argument: If Michael Jordan were President, he would be famous. Michael Jordan is famous. Therefore Michael Jordan is President.


True. It seems like a tautology, though. Complex things are designed, therefore things that are complex are designed. The "observation" and "experiment" steps are functionally identical in that they both assert that complexity automatically means something is designed.

Of course, not all fallacies are tautologies. And not all tautologies are fallacies. For example, I farkin' love cheese quesadillas.
 
2009-03-26 09:25:51 PM  
So we can't teach the kids good science? Ya know, the whole looking for flaws and then returning with a new theory if applicable thing? Not that I care one way or the other but, really, being taught to look at theories scientifically instead of blind belief might actually have some benefits.
 
2009-03-26 09:27:27 PM  
The solution to the 'controversy' is very simple:

Anyone who does not believe in evolution only gets basic penicillin when they get an infection (otherwise they'd be hypocrites).

The rest of us can use the antibiotics designed to fight the evolved bacteria.

In a few decades there will be no more argument.
 
2009-03-26 09:27:27 PM  
bartink: Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: The dollars being printed by the government are creating government jobs. Not good if you aren't in the club and have no desire to be in the club. We are going to need to downsize the federal government in earnest or there's going to be big problems. Hopefully if it comes to that, the one plank of the federal government, the military, will be ready to set things right. That's no sure thing anymore though if the democrats go through with their plan to create a domestic praetorian guard to defend their privilege.

5/10. Way too obvious.


And in the wrong thread.

Your rant could be better posted in the Mac vs PC thread..
 
2009-03-26 09:28:37 PM  
Malaclypse the Younger: CDP:
Wow, when did Richard Dawkins become a zoologist? That's a spectacular job of taking a quote out of context as well. Not only is your argument baseless, it's wrong.


psssst....look at the pictures...
 
2009-03-26 09:29:02 PM  
Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: Science without religion is bound to kill you. Remember, the biggest reason for our problems today is a lack of shame and honor - you know, the little angel on your shoulder named morality.

Religion and morality are not synonyms.
 
2009-03-26 09:29:10 PM  
One of the biggest difficulties about evolution is that many people don't get that it's an ongoing, dynamic process (it's still happening in YOUR OWN FAMILY)...
and it takes a looooong time for changes to really show up.

This is why 'the study of fruit flies' is important...they're fairly complex gene-wise, but their generations are measured in days rather than decades.
Speeds up the study process enormously...

We (humans) are NOT a finished product...we're still evolving.
We can't help it; we're alive, we reproduce, and we've got a really complex genetic code, an expanding population, and an increasingly farked-up environment that our descendants will have to deal with.
So...we evolve, trying to come up with a genetic combination that will allow for maximum reproduction with what we've got to work with.

Each generation is a snapshot, not a 'finished product' or 'end of the line'.


/ I hope...
 
2009-03-26 09:29:41 PM  
Malaclypse the Younger: Wow, when did Richard Dawkins become a zoologist?

In 1962 when he graduated from Balliol College, Oxford?
 
2009-03-26 09:30:16 PM  
Tsk Tsk Cyborg77,

If we Teach one, we have to teach them all!.

img291.imageshack.us

Separation of Church and state is there to protect everyone.
If you teach one religion in school, you have to teach them all, and Im gona take a wild guess that these people would have a problem with teaching the Hindu or Native American creation myths.

/hot like the sun going around the earth.
 
2009-03-26 09:30:37 PM  
I envy the satisfaction the vulgar Christian right will get from feeding their persecution fetish this scrap of conflict with reason.
 
2009-03-26 09:32:40 PM  
DistendedPendulusFrenulum: This sort of thing would never have happened back then.

The Aguillard ruling only happened in '87, and before that evolution only really started getting wide spread acceptance in the classroom during the 60's.

/And, of course, Scalia was one of the dissenting Justices in the '87 opinion
 
2009-03-26 09:33:04 PM  
For once, Texas actually does something right. I live in Dallas, and was afraid I would have to be disgusted YET AGAIN by my state and its usual, fundie-Christian superstitious nonsense. I'm glad to see they'll be teaching science, and not religious mythology, in schools.

i174.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 09:33:13 PM  
SleepyMcGee:
FTFA:The seven board members and social conservative groups supporting the rule have argued that its absence would discourage classroom discussion about evolution. They have cited alleged flaws in Darwin's theory that they contend should be covered in classes and textbooks.

Why won't these cretins learn that evolutionary theory has changed (evolved) since Darwin?


They know. They just lie, and lie, and lie.

Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes:
That's no sure thing anymore though if the democrats go through with their plan to create a domestic praetorian guard to defend their privilege.

LOLOLOL because a Praetorian Guard is always such a good idea for would-be despots. Wikipedia has a handy list of which Emperors they themselves assassinated.
 
2009-03-26 09:34:30 PM  
Kali-Yuga: Bloody William:
1: Complex things are intelligently designed.
2: We can prove things are intelligently designed by looking at how complex they are.
3: Things are complex.
4: Things are intelligently designed.

5: God is complex.
6: Who/What Designed God?


Thomas Aquinas used that sort of logic over 800 years ago with his five-step proof of god. To simplify it to the point of being downright laconic:

1: Things change.
2: Change must be made to happen.
3: Since things exist, the changes that caused them to exist must also have existed, out of necessity.
4: For everything that exists, something must exist that is greater than all other things of its kind.
5: Everything goes according to a design.

Super-condensed summary:

God makes things happen. We know god exists because things happen.

It... um... doesn't really work, and compared to his extensive writings on ethics and virtue, that little slice of philosophical bullshiat, while greatly representative of intelligent design, simply doesn't hold up under any deep scrutiny.
 
2009-03-26 09:34:42 PM  
Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: Science without religion is bound to kill you.

Nonsense. The idea you seem to be suggesting is that only religious people can have morals, which is absolute rubbish.
 
2009-03-26 09:35:44 PM  
UnspokenVoice: So we can't teach the kids good science? Ya know, the whole looking for flaws and then returning with a new theory if applicable thing? Not that I care one way or the other but, really, being taught to look at theories scientifically instead of blind belief might actually have some benefits.

Actually this should stop people from teaching pure stupidity in a science class. The teaching of the leading theories and the scientific method used to develop them has been the corner-stone of grade school/high school science classes for generations.

There is no justification for throwing in religious based garbage that does not even attempt to pass the basic rigors of a scientific theory. ID is not an alternate scientific theory because it is not science (by a long shot).

Destroying a child's education in a feeble attempt to further ingrain your religious indoctrination is nothing more than child abuse.
 
2009-03-26 09:36:25 PM  
Oh thank you sweet, merciful Jeebus, I weep for my state a lot but at least today I can be halfway proud
 
2009-03-26 09:36:49 PM  
In b4 Bevets!

Good for Texas.
 
2009-03-26 09:37:00 PM  
UnspokenVoice: So we can't teach the kids good science? Ya know, the whole looking for flaws and then returning with a new theory if applicable thing? Not that I care one way or the other but, really, being taught to look at theories scientifically instead of blind belief might actually have some benefits.

As soon as a better alternative is presented, we should be open to it.

Intelligent design is not a scientifically viable (or remotely legitimate) alternative, and the flaws in evolution as we currently know it, while present do not disprove the entire approach. Evolution is our best explanation for the development and diversity of organic life on this planet, and is backed up with far, far more evidence and research than ID.
 
2009-03-26 09:39:42 PM  
Bloody William: As soon as a better alternative is presented, we should be open to it.

It doesn't have to be better. It just has to be a real scientific theory and, preferably, address some of the limitations of competing theories. This would make it interesting enough to discuss.

ID does not qualify ... it doesn't even try to qualify.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 09:40:09 PM  
Talon: CDP, how is that experiment falsifiable? Your "experiment" read more like an observation. What exactly is the test, and how is the test falsifiable? That's what makes a scientific experiment a legitimate experiment.

Evolution - Philosophy, Not Science
Gregory Koukl

Greg shows that Darwin's General Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science.

I'm mystified by the opening sentence of an article in Friday's Union Tribune (October 25, 1996). It says, "In his most comprehensive statement yet on evolution, Pope John Paul II insisted that faith and science can co-exist."

So far, so good. I agree with the Pope wholeheartedly on this first point. If you heard my opening address at our conference on Science and Faith, you'd know why I think they can co-exist if they are properly defined. (How science and faith are defined is an important part of answering the question.)

I part ways with the Pope in his next statement. He said that "Charles Darwin's theories are sound as long as they take into account that creation was the work of God."

That's an odd thing to say, it seems to me. I mean no disrespect here at all to Pope John Paul II. But doesn't that strike you as odd? It seems to me that Charles Darwin's theories--scientific theories, theories about the origins and development of things--are either sound or not sound. If they're not sound, you can't baptize them by bringing God into the picture and miraculously make them sound. And if they are sound in themselves, then you don't need to add God to make them work, do you? It's already doing fine on its own. Which is the point of evolution: mother nature without father God.

I don't think evolution works at all. I don't think Charles Darwin's theories are sound, so I'm not in the least bit tempted to baptize them with some form of theistic evolution.

By definition, evolution offered an explanation for how things got to be the way they are without God (I'm referring to what's known as the "general theory of evolution"). This is why it made such a splash. Do you think that if God could be worked into the evolutionary picture, then evolution would have taken off the way it did? Of course not.

Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and one of the world's preeminent evolutionists, was right when he said that Darwin made the world safe for atheism. But if Darwinism can be easily baptized with theism, how can it be that Darwin made the world safe for atheism? It's precisely because evolution seemed to explain things that used to require the existence of God to explain them that Darwinism became so popular and accepted within ten to fifteen years after Origin of Species was published in 1859. It's precisely because God is out of the picture that evolution is so appealing.

When you listen to evolutionists like Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, he's very willing to admit you can believe in God and also be an evolutionist. No problem. But that doesn't mean Gould approves of theistic evolution. Gould means that plenty of his friends believe in God, but their belief in God is a religious thing they do in their closets, inside their homes and behind the closed doors of the churches. They don't mix religion and science, God and evolution, fantasy with fact.

Gould's attitude is typical of other evolutionary scientists. Believe in God if you want. Practice your religious alchemy in the privacy of your own home if you must. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with the real world. When it comes to the real world, the fact of the matter is that God was not involved in the process. Life evolved through non-directed, materialistic processes. Stephen J. Gould and everyone else who writes on this issue makes that very clear.

When people try to fit God into the process of evolution, that's when evolutionists like Gould stand up and say, "Wait a minute, you don't understand evolution if that's what you think actually took place. Evolution is by chance, not design, and you can't have design by chance."

Theistic evolution means design by chance. That's like square circles, ladies and gentlemen. There is no such thing.

The real question is whether the evidence supports evolution or not, not whether we can baptize evolution with the word "God" so Christians feel comfortable.

To put it simply, lest there be any confusion about the matter, evolution must be dealt with scientifically, on its own merits. Is it an adequate explanation of the origin of things?

I think it's wholly inadequate. Contrary to the Pope's views, the more knowledge we get, the more problems we see with the origin of life by evolutionary means--the more problems we see with the change from one kind of life into another by evolutionary means.

The passage of time and the increase of knowledge haven't helped evolution; they've hurt it. Evolution was popular early on precisely because there was so little information about the process. Now we know much more about the details of biochemistry and genetics, and information theory, and the incredible complexity of even the simplest living thing. It's become evident that evolution is just not capable of explaining life.

You want proof for that? Here, it's very simple. This is my handy-dandy evolution refuter. It's the simplest way I know to right to the heart of the problem, proving that evolution is not based on fact, but on philosophy.

For evolution to be a fact, you must have two things, minimally. First, you've got to have life coming from non-life--abiogenesis. Second, you've got to have a change in that life from simple forms to complex forms over time. You must have the kick-off, and you must have the rest of the game.

Now, here's my question: How did life come from non-life? How did the game get started by evolutionary means. Does anyone know? Guess what? Nobody knows. Oh, there are some ideas and people have suggested some possible ways, but nobody has sketched out any way that really answers the question. There are so many problems and complications. There are competing models that have been suggested, but they're just starting places. They're just ways of saying, "Let's start here, and we'll see where it leads." There are possibilities, but no one knows how it happened, or even how it could have happened in enough detail to be compelling."

Now, here's the kicker. If you don't know how it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes, how do you know that it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes? Evolution is claimed to be a fact, but you can't have the fact of evolution unless you have the fact of abiogenesis. Yet nobody knows how such a thing could ever take place. And if life can't be shown to have come from non-life, then the game can't even get started.

Then why do we call evolution a fact when evolution can't even get off the ground, based on the information we have right now. The answer you get is always the same: Because we're here. It must have happened . That's called circular reasoning, friends, based on a prior commitment to naturalism that won't be shaken by the facts.

Which proves that this is not about science, it's about philosophy.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 09:41:24 PM  
This headline has Bevets written all over it? How is he not in here by now?
 
2009-03-26 09:42:05 PM  
iollow: In any college level evolution class, they of course DO explain the "weaknesses" of the theory. Or to be more correct, the limitations of the theory.

Any science class is like this. People who actually take science classes know this. Teaching science is not about teaching indisputable facts. It's about teaching how anyone can figure out these things for themselves.


The thing of it is, fundies can't wrap their heads around what a theory is. They act like a theory is an idea or an educated guess.

That's closer to a hypothesis than a theory.

A theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenonm supported and tested through empirical observation and experiments.

And most of science, including gravity, is considered a theory.

As such, most scientific topics are discussed as theories, giving the scope and limitations, and the gaps that still exist within a theory.

Fundies don't understand this.

But the fundies prefer to believe that science is trying to scrub God out of the brains of children, so they are disparately jamming God back in at every chance they get.

In fact, fundies don't give a damn about education, no they just want to brainwash kids with their ridiculous dogma.
 
2009-03-26 09:42:09 PM  
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y191/CygnusDarius/Science21.jpg
 
2009-03-26 09:42:20 PM  
Farking Canuck: Bloody William: As soon as a better alternative is presented, we should be open to it.

It doesn't have to be better. It just has to be a real scientific theory and, preferably, address some of the limitations of competing theories. This would make it interesting enough to discuss.

ID does not qualify ... it doesn't even try to qualify.


True, but just being testable doesn't mean it should be taught in schools. In college courses, as new approaches? Certainly. In advanced high school biology courses? Sure. But not in elementary school or any other basic science or biology classes where the basics of life are discussed. That's like holding up a prism, teaching kids about how white light splits into colors, and then running them through a lesson on the potentials of quantum entanglement.
 
2009-03-26 09:43:16 PM  
Because apparently it's forbidden.
 
2009-03-26 09:43:38 PM  
Space_Fetus: I guess not. *sigh* on the plus side I GIS'd "God did it" and came across this gem on the first page no less. Enjoy!

God made a little girl cry?

What a jerk.
 
2009-03-26 09:43:43 PM  
fark all this religious shiat appearing recently on fark.

enough is enough
STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!
 
2009-03-26 09:43:46 PM  
Bloody William: Intelligent design is not a scientifically viable (or remotely legitimate) alternative, and the flaws in evolution as we currently know it, while present do not disprove the entire approach.

Not to mention, any 'flaws' in our knowledge are of such detail that to include them in even the advanced science courses in highschools would be nearly impossible.
 
2009-03-26 09:44:00 PM  
"The war between science and religion has been over for 500 years. Science won. That's why we no longer live in the dark ages and we're able to communicate with each other over the internet."

Or godtubes, as I prefer to call it.
 
2009-03-26 09:44:26 PM  
www.pissedonpolitics.com
 
2009-03-26 09:44:36 PM  
CDP: CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified).

Do you have ANY idea of how long 14 Billion years are?
Actually the probability of ANYTHING is close to one seen in the light of possibilities in the universe over this timespan.

CSI = Calling Shiat Intelligent!
 
2009-03-26 09:45:20 PM  
Good 'ol fundies. Claim to be so concerned about what their kids are being taught but they really just want to decide what your kids are taught.

The fundies want to control your children's hearts and minds, thankfully someone thought of the children.
 
2009-03-26 09:47:10 PM  
I love how ID proponents like to talk about small, extremely specific 'controversies' in evolutionary biology. However, if they ever attended a real university and taken more than an introductory science class (any one will do, physics is an awesome example of this), you are routinely reminded that everything the previous class taught you was wrong, for the most part, because of all the different details. What you were taught in the beginning is sound, for the most part, but when doing real analysis you need to know even more.

Maybe we should stop teaching physics and chemistry too?
 
2009-03-26 09:47:55 PM  
All of our actions and deeds are watched by Him. He was watching today and those responsible for rejecting his presence and love will be called to reckoning one day. There will be no relief as the fires in the pits of Hades can not be alleviated by some man and his turtle from the Galapagos.

/don't mind me, just doing a little fishing
//did i do it right or too over the top
 
2009-03-26 09:48:49 PM  
Pharque-it: CDP: CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified).

Do you have ANY idea of how long 14 Billion years are?
Actually the probability of ANYTHING is close to one seen in the light of possibilities in the universe over this timespan.

CSI = Calling Shiat Intelligent!


I was going to agree but then you lost it completely.
 
2009-03-26 09:49:43 PM  
Suck it, repugnitards!
 
Displayed 50 of 908 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report