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  
•       •       •

26976 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
 
2009-03-27 12:04:54 AM
zeph`: Your terms are mixed up.

True, I did mix up my terms, but your argument is still actually invalid:

3. A god will exist after a certain period of time.
4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.

4 does not follow from 3. If the premises are true, the conclusion can still be false, which is the definition of invalid.
 
2009-03-27 12:04:56 AM
i132.photobucket.com

Sadly this little twit is probably not a troll.

Yeah let's teach the Nazi's side of The Holocaust,
The Slave owner's side of Human Slavery,
The Flat-Earther's side of the Earth's shape.

Also, did we land on the moon? Are women really
as intelligent as men. Are black people really people at all?
This is fun.

Let's unwind it all the way back to Aristotle. Couldn't the Earth
really be in the center of the universe?

You decide.
 
2009-03-27 12:05:02 AM
TommyDeuce: Nah, that tract goes back to the good old days of First Edition

I know, but this is why I said, "at least according to 3.5 rules." My D&D nerd spots tons of errors in current play and I laugh hysterically.
 
2009-03-27 12:05:13 AM
Why you all responding to CDP?

Is the image and text not juxtaposed enough for you?
 
2009-03-27 12:06:58 AM
CDP: awesomeness

Had I written that article I would have replaced all instances of "awesomeness" with "tubularity". The Flood was tubular, dudes!
 
2009-03-27 12:07:18 AM
Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a long-time curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories - notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution - be taught in science classes and covered in textbooks for those subjects.

Can't believe no one picked up on that yet...

I can't think of any valid scientific weakness of any valid scientific theory, including the theory of evolution (which, by the way, is no longer just Charles Darwin's), that should be taught to middle school or high school children. For one, sadly, there simply isn't enough time to go really go into the weaknesses of the scientific theories taught in class to the degree that better understanding can be achieved.

For another, to understand the weaknesses of any scientific theory requires a good deal of understanding about the theory in the first place. I can, and have (in my more evil moments), convinced a few people of the validity of phrenology (without using the word phrenology) over our current understanding of neuroscience simply by detailing what can be called weaknesses in our current understanding of nervous system functioning.

Thirdly, when it comes to the theories taught in middle and high school science classes... the weaknesses are too complex because those theories are so well established. Hell, most weaknesses of the theories that are taught to middle/high school children are too complex for college students to be taught it and walk away with having a better understanding of science (either in general, or specifically that field, or whatever). Most real hardcore deconstruction of scientific theories as sound as the ones we teach children is not done until graduate school... or if you're lucky your upper division science courses during your undergrad years. Seriously - what weaknesses of the theory of gravity or thermodynamics or germ theory of diseases or atomic theory should be taught in middle school or high school?

This is just more bullsh*t double-speak intended to confuse a scientifically illiterate population into supporting creationist propaganda.
 
2009-03-27 12:07:21 AM
zeph`: heinekenftw: Um, given infinite time, no matter the odds, it will eventually happen.

1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.
2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.
3. A god will exist after a certain period of time.
4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.
5. A god exists currently.

YOU LOSE!


Consider two numbers a and b

a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2 - b^2 = a*b - b^2
( a + b )( a - b ) = b ( a - b )
a + b = b
b + b = b
2*b = b
2 = 1
 
2009-03-27 12:08:59 AM
Vangor: Having no position is still atheism as you do not believe in one or more deities. You're free to call yourself agnostic with regards to wanting no side in the conversation, but...this seems awkward considering your joining an internet conversation.

I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion when I'm simply saying that I have no position on whether or not there is a God. That certainly doesn't stop me from posting on Fark.

This is from the dictionary:

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god


I'm agnostic as it is broadly known. I don't frankly care what the historical use of the term is. If I did, I'd go back to school and study that shiat, instead of the shiat I studied instead.
 
2009-03-27 12:09:36 AM
Bucky Katt: Bloody William: 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.

What about inorganic life?


img256.imageshack.us

Idunno, what about it?
 
2009-03-27 12:09:40 AM
photos-c.ak.facebook.com

farm4.static.flickr.com

Woot! Good on you Tejas!
 
2009-03-27 12:10:22 AM
do not question the weaknesses in the theory.

nothing to see here.

just move along.
 
2009-03-27 12:11:43 AM
FTA: Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a long-time curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories - notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution - be taught in science classes and covered in textbooks for those subjects.

Read Karl Popper. Putting theories to the test, religious or not, is how we come to know stuff. What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?
 
2009-03-27 12:12:09 AM
PC LOAD LETTER: 3. A god will exist after a certain period of time.
4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.



3 and 4 are premises, 4 is not a lemma. 5 is the conclusion entailed by premises 1-4.

Regardless, the argument was absurdly ad hoc to respond to the point the original poster made, and not in any way meant to be either sound OR valid OR serious. For what it's worth your longer response about the validity of the argument was excellent.
 
2009-03-27 12:13:04 AM
Renart:

This one's good, too:



Help! I can't tell whether I'm an eighth-level cleric named "Elfstar" or a junior high school student!


I would recommend this optional commentary to accompany Mr. Chick's "Dark Dungeons" tract.
 
2009-03-27 12:13:21 AM
Link (new window)
 
2009-03-27 12:14:18 AM
Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory

For example?
 
2009-03-27 12:14:58 AM
Oh.

My.

God.

This has been a truely epic Fark thread. I tittered with laughter almost the whole way through.
 
2009-03-27 12:15:29 AM
Kubo: FTA: Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a long-time curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories - notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution - be taught in science classes and covered in textbooks for those subjects.

Read Karl Popper. Putting theories to the test, religious or not, is how we come to know stuff. What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?


Because they don't want to test theories in the pure sense. They have a very specific agenda that they're trying to Trojan-horse through with "teach the controversy"
 
2009-03-27 12:15:29 AM
zeph`: SoxSweepAgain: If I'm wrong, sorry.

You're wrong. ninjakirby, mind backing a brother up in hurr?


Sure. I herebye stake my personal reputation to vouch for the fact that Zeph is actually an evil cyborg sent here to pose as a logician who toys with dated theological arguments in order to poke fun at, well everyone.

colon_pow: do not question the weaknesses in the theory.

nothing to see here.

just move along.


The new wording states "The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing"

What's your problem?
 
2009-03-27 12:16:05 AM
bartink: This is from the dictionary

Dictionaries are common usage. As defined by most dictionaries, atheism is a doctrine, belief, system of beliefs, and more, which is absurdly false, but this is more common usage.

bartink: I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion when I'm simply saying that I have no position on whether or not there is a God.

However, more my point, you are an atheist because you lack a belief in a deity. I am not drawing a conclusion; this is your conclusion by stating no position on the existence of a deity. If your purpose is to avoid being inundated with discussion on why you don't believe by using a more approachable label, feel free, but don't delude yourself.
 
2009-03-27 12:16:22 AM
Kubo: Read Karl Popper. Putting theories to the test, religious or not, is how we come to know stuff. What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?

Wanna try to teach Popper to a high schooler? Me neither. Its the same reason that theories are simply broadly explained. They are both over the head of high school students.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that not a single one of those idiots that voted for this measure could explain the weakness of any scientific theory, not even evolution.
 
2009-03-27 12:16:40 AM
Religion is ST00PID Link (new window)
 
2009-03-27 12:16:53 AM
Your puny brains are not adequate to comprehend the vastness of the universe! So, obviously, God did it.
 
2009-03-27 12:17:27 AM
Kubo: is how we come to know stuff.

Not all stuff.

Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory

What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolutionary theory is that those weaknesses cannot properly be understood by the large majority of people without a specific education in either evolutionary biology, or alternatively, the philosophy of science (philosophy of biology in particular). For example, I think that the theory of developmental systems developed by Susan Oyama in The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution represents either a weakness, a problem, or an answered question of evolutionary biology - but in no way can developmental systems theory (or the competing theories) be taught at a high school level.
 
2009-03-27 12:17:45 AM
Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?

"strengths and weaknesses" is a well known creationist code-word for long-debunked anti-evolution myths.
 
2009-03-27 12:17:45 AM
LlamaFan:
Consider two numbers a and b

a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2 - b^2 = a*b - b^2
( a + b )( a - b ) = b ( a - b )
a + b = b
b + b = b
2*b = b
2 = 1


www.dodeca-t.com
 
2009-03-27 12:18:29 AM
ninjakirby: I herebye stake my personal reputation to vouch for the fact that Zeph is actually an evil cyborg sent here to pose as a logician who toys with dated theological arguments in order to poke fun at, well everyone.

Not to self: be more specific in what you want people to vouch for.
 
2009-03-27 12:18:37 AM
Vangor: Dictionaries are common usage. As defined by most dictionaries, atheism is a doctrine, belief, system of beliefs, and more, which is absurdly false, but this is more common usage.

Your on an internet cite with a secret section of links to Boobies. What level of usage do you really think is appropriate here?

Vangor: However, more my point, you are an atheist because you lack a belief in a deity. I am not drawing a conclusion; this is your conclusion by stating no position on the existence of a deity. If your purpose is to avoid being inundated with discussion on why you don't believe by using a more approachable label, feel free, but don't delude yourself.

I'm not deluding myself. I am an agnostic, as its commonly defined.

You just said you agree with that.
 
2009-03-27 12:19:40 AM
LiebeMachtFrei: "strengths and weaknesses" is a well known creationist code-word for long-debunked anti-evolution myths.

It is, but not necessarily so.
 
2009-03-27 12:19:41 AM
zeph`: Kubo: is how we come to know stuff.

Not all stuff.

Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory

What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolutionary theory is that those weaknesses cannot properly be understood by the large majority of people without a specific education in either evolutionary biology, or alternatively, the philosophy of science (philosophy of biology in particular). For example, I think that the theory of developmental systems developed by Susan Oyama in The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution represents either a weakness, a problem, or an answered question of evolutionary biology - but in no way can developmental systems theory (or the competing theories) be taught at a high school level.


Yep.

Shut up, or get book learning if you really wanna know.
 
2009-03-27 12:19:51 AM
tinyarena: Couldn't the Earth
really be in the center of the universe?


Well, considering the edge of the universe is the same distance in any direction, Earth is the center of the universe.
 
2009-03-27 12:20:27 AM
zeph`: 1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.

Demonstrate please.
 
2009-03-27 12:21:11 AM
bartink: Wanna try to teach Popper to a high schooler?

Falsificationism is easily taught, especially in the context of the problems with something like Ayer's verificationism. I could do it in an hour.
 
2009-03-27 12:22:38 AM
the_cnidarian:

Well, considering the edge of the visible universe is the same distance in any direction, Earth is the center of the visible universe.

fix0r3d... I think.
 
2009-03-27 12:22:51 AM
zeph`: 3 and 4 are premises, 4 is not a lemma. 5 is the conclusion entailed by premises 1-4.

Regardless, the argument was absurdly ad hoc to respond to the point the original poster made, and not in any way meant to be either sound OR valid OR serious. For what it's worth your longer response about the validity of the argument was excellent.


I know you were joking, but I disagree that 4 is not a lemma, but whatev. Gnight. It was fun engaging in logical masturbation :)
 
2009-03-27 12:23:09 AM
Kubo: Putting theories to the test, religious or not, is how we come to know stuff. What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?

Elementary, middle, and high school science/biology classes are not frankly where this belongs. The weaknesses do not remove anything from what should actually be taught in those courses and would require precious time on establishing scientific concepts, terminology, facts, etc., relevant to the greater understanding of the theory.

The more basic problem with the "weaknesses" argument is that to realistically understand those weaknesses in an established scientific theory requires a high degree of knowledge which simply can't be taught so quickly or so early. The weaknesses would need to be fundamental in the theory itself, in which case that theory shouldn't be taught; however, this is not the position used anymore.
 
2009-03-27 12:23:49 AM
brynaldo: answered

Unanswered. And to be to fair it's developmental biology in general, not just evolutionary biology.
 
2009-03-27 12:25:01 AM
0Icky0: Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory

For example?


Damned if I know. I'm just applying things I've learned in philosophy and epistemology to this arena. Just seems to me that both sides get butthurt when their stance is challeneged at any level.

And even if at the present time, there are no recognized weaknesses with evolution theory, that sure as hell doesn't mean we shouldn't trying to come up with a better, more educated theory. Maybe it'll be a form of current evolutionary theory, maybe not. My point is that it's stupid to sit back and assume we know all there is to know about a process, evolutionary or otherwise.

/Believes in God, believes in evolution
//wheeee free thinking
 
2009-03-27 12:25:11 AM
Vangor: The more basic problem with the "weaknesses" argument is that to realistically understand those weaknesses in an established scientific theory requires a high degree of knowledge which simply can't be taught so quickly or so early.

I feel as if I recently read something very similar to this. Oh, that's right - I didn't read it, I posted it myself!

Either way, it's true. If you want to talk about the weaknesses of evolutionary theory get working on some advanced degrees.
 
2009-03-27 12:26:10 AM
zeph`: Falsificationism is easily taught, especially in the context of the problems with something like Ayer's verificationism. I could do it in an hour.

At the expense of teaching what?

The dumb one's would never get it and proceed to entertain themselves by throwing shiat at the smart one's that may or may not give a fark about your lecture.

Trust me, I used to teach.

Teach the common theories and a basic understanding of scientific principles and some of their history. You know, Jeopardy stuff.

Remember, half of everyone is too dumb to be considered average.
 
2009-03-27 12:26:31 AM
Would intelligent design be easier for the masses (sorry) to accept if it had a catchier name like SHAMWOW! or SillyPutty?
 
2009-03-27 12:27:08 AM
neenerist: Demonstrate please.

HOWABOUT YOU PROVE ME WRONG OKAY? HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT?!
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-27 12:27:36 AM
Sod A Dog: You're either the best troll I've ever seen, or the worst analyst in the (~1.5 million year long) history of mankind.

Creationists are often asked, "How is it possible for the earth's population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?" Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

One Plus One Equals Billions

Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That's 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.

Impact of the Flood

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.

From two people, created about 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world's population could easily have grown to the extent we now see it-over 6.5 billion.

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world's population would be a staggering figure-a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.

This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world's population could have grown to the extent we now see it-over 6.5 billion.

With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, "If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?" This is a question that evolution supporters must answer.

Link (new window)
i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 12:28:11 AM
Wow, there were only about 50 comments in an evolution thread? Things sure have changed during my short hiatus from Fark...
"Displayed 50 of 369 comments"
Oh.
 
2009-03-27 12:28:20 AM
zeph`: brynaldo: answered

Unanswered. And to be to fair it's developmental biology in general, not just evolutionary biology.


This is not the username you are looking for.

?
 
2009-03-27 12:28:35 AM
Vangor:
The more basic problem with the "weaknesses" argument is that to realistically understand those weaknesses in an established scientific theory requires a high degree of knowledge which simply can't be taught so quickly or so early.


Solid point. Maybe I expect too much of high schoolers.
 
2009-03-27 12:29:37 AM
bartink: You just said you agree with that.

No, I only agreed with your using this only under a certain circumstance. Entering into a conversation regarding belief in a deity and scientific theory, even if on a site with a section of tit links, wouldn't fall under that circumstance. Tell your devout, Catholic grandmother that you're agnostic, but when you're in a discussion about the proper terminology I think colloquial usage is gone; as with the term theory.

You seem concerned with the label of atheism despite this being exactly what you are, and this is what I see of most arguments from "agnostics"; they believe they'll be demonized.
 
2009-03-27 12:30:15 AM
Your premise, you demonstrate.
 
2009-03-27 12:30:18 AM
The Reptilians will destroy you
 
2009-03-27 12:30:42 AM
LiebeMachtFrei: Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?

"strengths and weaknesses" is a well known creationist code-word for long-debunked anti-evolution myths.


For example:

Mercer is now arguing in favor of his amendment. He says that the word "weaknesses" has been good for Texas science education. He now is going through the history of the changes made to the science TEKS over three drafts. In some cases, S&W was changed to "strengths and limitations." He said he has received about 10,000 messages to keep S&W so he has no problem advocating it. He says we heard testifiers and scientists say there questions about evolution. These hundreds of scientists say there are weaknesses and disagreements about evolution. He says there used to be 700 but now 1000 scientists who signed the DI Darwinism statement that say there are problems, weaknesses, and controversies. He names these: the feathered dinosaur out of China, Haeckel's embryos, Piltdown Man, peppered moths, the Cambrian Explosion, microevolution and macroevolution, and similar things.


These ladies and gentlemen, are your weaknesses: Acheopteryx/Sinosauropteryx, old drawings that aren't part of any relevant curriculum, a single well known hoax, a valid and reproduced study on Moth populations, a highly complex upper-academia geology subject, and bullshiat semantics.

Any teacher without an ideological YEC agenda could cover these topics in twenty minutes, and probably do, when they come up (rarely). Those with an agenda, however, use them to teach bullshiat and force their ignorance onto children.

Asked if Freshwater ever questioned facts in the textbook, Nathan responded "Yes, because relative dates are not accurate." Pressed a little further, Nathan identified "Fossils and trees and stuff."

Asked about the use of "here!" in class, Nathan testified that it was used by students "when there was a date in the book we'd say 'here.' When the book said a fossil was 49 million years old we'd say 'here'."


That's the kind of teaching you get when you allow 'strengths and weaknesses' language in your standards. Sad, but true.
 
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