zeph`: Your terms are mixed up.
TommyDeuce: Nah, that tract goes back to the good old days of First Edition
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!
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.
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
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?
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.
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!
Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory
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)?
zeph`: SoxSweepAgain: If I'm wrong, sorry.You're wrong. ninjakirby, mind backing a brother up in hurr?
colon_pow: do not question the weaknesses in the theory.nothing to see here.just move along.
bartink: This is from the dictionary
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.
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)?
Kubo: is how we come to know stuff.
Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?
LlamaFan: Consider two numbers a and ba = ba^2 = a*ba^2 - b^2 = a*b - b^2( a + b )( a - b ) = b ( a - b )a + b = bb + b = b2*b = b2 = 1
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.
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.
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.
LiebeMachtFrei: "strengths and weaknesses" is a well known creationist code-word for long-debunked anti-evolution myths.
zeph`: Kubo: is how we come to know stuff.Not all stuff.Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theoryWhat'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.
tinyarena: Couldn't the Earthreally be in the center of the universe?
zeph`: 1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.
bartink: Wanna try to teach Popper to a high schooler?
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.
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)?
0Icky0: Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theoryFor example?
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.
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.
neenerist: Demonstrate please.
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.
zeph`: brynaldo: answeredUnanswered. And to be to fair it's developmental biology in general, not just evolutionary biology.
bartink: You just said you agree with that.
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.
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.
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'."
Want more news before we break it? Try
See what's behind the green doorand help keep the tap flowing
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 18 2018 03:46:19
Runtime: 0.853 sec (853 ms)