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  
•       •       •

26980 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 | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-27 12:32:02 AM  
zeph`: 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!

Your royalty check is in the mail (I don't read every post, or I probably would've just copied yours with proper attribution).
 
2009-03-27 12:33:10 AM  
Kubo: /Believes in God, believes in evolution
//wheeee free thinking


/Understands evolution, believes salamanders can live in fire
//wheeee
 
2009-03-27 12:33:28 AM  
Kubo: 0Icky0: Kubo: Maybe it'll be a form of current evolutionary theory, maybe not.


img401.imageshack.usimg401.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-27 12:34:05 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.

I think basic rhetoric/logic should be introduced in junior high, or at least Highschool. There is no reason people should only be introduced to this stuff so late in their education. It would make almost all education sooooo much simpler, once they have those tools.
 
2009-03-27 12:35:05 AM  
CDP: Well, you sold me. Those crazy evolutionists have been wrong the whole time!

Does this mean that I have to start going to church now? GODDAMMIT!
 
2009-03-27 12:35:41 AM  
Kubo: 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.

Like my math teacher used to get butthurt when I challenged his 3+3=6 theory. Why not 33? Teach both sides.
 
2009-03-27 12:35:48 AM  
Vangor: Your royalty check is in the mail (I don't read every post, or I probably would've just copied yours with proper attribution).

Hehe, just joking anyhow - it's a common comment when someone mentions the words "weakness" and "evolution". What's the royalty for fark.com post use, anyways?
 
2009-03-27 12:37:00 AM  
Vangor: 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.

I entered into a conversation about it by saying that I didn't know whether or not there was a God or not. That's hardly saying, "Hey guys, lets discuss definitions of the terms atheism and agnosticism!!!"

I don't frankly care. My point in saying it was that someone was claiming that simply pointing out logical fallacies wasn't really staking a position. My response was, "What if their agnostic and don't really have a position?"

Get it?
 
2009-03-27 12:37:47 AM  
ninjakirby: I think basic rhetoric/logic should be introduced in junior high, or at least Highschool. There is no reason people should only be introduced to this stuff so late in their education. It would make almost all education sooooo much simpler, once they have those tools.

I'm going to send you my MA thesis if/once it's finished. Our current (mistake) conception of the function of education wouldn't either allow or encourage something like that - my conception of the function of education (the one I plan on writing about) actively entails that (among other things).
 
2009-03-27 12:38:31 AM  
0Icky0: Kubo: 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.

Like my math teacher used to get butthurt when I challenged his 3+3=6 theory. Why not 33? Teach both sides.


Remember, when there are two sides to an argument presented, both sides are always equally valid. That's just logical factitude.
 
2009-03-27 12:38:36 AM  
zeph`: mistakefark me - mistaken.
 
2009-03-27 12:39:21 AM  
HellHammerX: The Reptilians will destroy you

It's about time someone recognized the importance of Lizard People.
 
2009-03-27 12:39:25 AM  
ninjakirby: tools

zeph`: zeph`: mistakefark me - mistaken.

Sigh. Mistaken, not mistake.
 
2009-03-27 12:40:20 AM  
zeph`: ninjakirby: I think basic rhetoric/logic should be introduced in junior high, or at least Highschool. There is no reason people should only be introduced to this stuff so late in their education. It would make almost all education sooooo much simpler, once they have those tools.

I'm going to send you my MA thesis if/once it's finished. Our current (mistake) conception of the function of education wouldn't either allow or encourage something like that - my conception of the function of education (the one I plan on writing about) actively entails that (among other things).


i2.photobucket.comrobola.files.wordpress.comi2.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 12:40:41 AM  
ninjakirby: 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.

That DI Darwinism statement is, in itself, a giant creationist lie. I personally know one of the scientists who name appears on that list and he said not only did he never agree to sign it, but that even 3 years after he repeatedly e-mailed the Discovery Institute to have his name taken off of it, his name still appears.

And anyway, there are more scientists on Project Steve than on the DI list.
 
2009-03-27 12:40:55 AM  
0Icky0:
Like my math teacher used to get butthurt when I challenged his 3+3=6 theory. Why not 33? Teach both sides.


Not once did I make an argument for teaching evolution in the classroom. Frankly, I think religion should be as far from schools as possible. Religion's for church, if you choose to go (I don't).
I'm talking about evaluating weaknesses (in the literal sense, not in the "agenda" sense people on here have already discussed) of theories for the sake of scientific advancement. If evolutionary theories qualify as scientific, then their tenets should be regularly evaluated.
 
2009-03-27 12:41:09 AM  
ninjakirby: I think basic rhetoric/logic should be introduced in junior high, or at least Highschool. There is no reason people should only be introduced to this stuff so late in their education. It would make almost all education sooooo much simpler, once they have those tools.

You are assuming that it would be worth to teach something to students that don't have the sophistication or brains to get.
 
2009-03-27 12:41:25 AM  
bartink: What level of usage do you really think is appropriate here?

That is determined by the participants, and the participants in the politics tab generally use the technical terminology in place of common usage. This prevents confusion of the issue amongst the knowledgable and serves as a means of correcting false impressions/information, such as your view on agnosticism, that exists amongst the layman.
 
2009-03-27 12:42:08 AM  
Dammit. I mean not once did I make an argument for teaching creationism.
Duh.
 
2009-03-27 12:42:15 AM  
ninjakirby: reason

Speaking of reason - the buses in my cities have started bearing the atheist ads. I proudly rode a bus this afternoon that said "God probably doesn't exist, so get on with living your lives".
 
2009-03-27 12:42:44 AM  
Ambrotos: This headline has Bevets written all over it? How is he not in here by now?

Spring Break? That's all I can figure.
 
2009-03-27 12:44:12 AM  
bartink: sophistication or brains to get.

That's a product of our flawed system. There's nothing physiologically preventing a student of high school age from being able to apprehend fairly advanced concepts. A better education from the ground up would produce students better able to cope with more advanced concepts on average and earlier.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-27 12:44:16 AM  
tinyarena: 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.


• "From goo to you by way of the zoo." - Frank Peretti[5]

• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.[64]

• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.[64]

• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966[60]

• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."[87]

• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.[64]

• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:
• Scales had to have mutated into hair.
• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.
• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.[64]

• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.[64]

• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.[64]

• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that
statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.[5]

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 12:45:32 AM  
I'm gonna toss my hat in with those who think alternative theories, weaknesses, limitations etc. with Darwinian evolution should be taught. But I also agree that it shouldn't open the door to teaching creationism or intelligent design. However, dogmatic science sets us back just as bad as fundamentalism. For example, Copernicus had some significant errors in his theories about the planets and solar system, but once they were adopted, scientists who spoke out with evidence contrary (other orbital models that explained the pathways and planetary motions better) were committing career suicide to publish.

Science is about acknowledging what the evidence points to, and being willing to let go, or modify when new evidence is found. If we accept one method or theory about things, we'd never have progressed from Newtonian, to relativistic, to standard model gravity.
 
2009-03-27 12:45:38 AM  
zeph`: What's the royalty for fark.com post use, anyways?

Three pictures of Salma Hayek partially unclothed and one of Eva Mendes clothed but you can see her nipples. I wasn't being serious either, I was more saying your comment was spot on and had I noticed I would've saved myself time heh.

bartink: My response was, "What if their agnostic and don't really have a position?"

Well, firstly I am bored and waiting for my dinner to finish cooking so don't take me too seriously, however, you do realize my argument has been that your position is, regardless of the appearance of neutrality, congruent with atheism, right?
 
2009-03-27 12:46:22 AM  
Murkanen: That is determined by the participants, and the participants in the politics tab generally use the technical terminology in place of common usage. This prevents confusion of the issue amongst the knowledgable and serves as a means of correcting false impressions/information, such as your view on agnosticism, that exists amongst the layman.

What a load of crap.

There was no confusion. He knew exactly what I meant. So did the guy that is nitpicking. So do you.

Define liberal.

Are you actually going to try to suggest that probably the most common belief system named here is actually the classical definition of "liberal"? Its the common one.

Gimme a break. It's Fark. Not college.
 
2009-03-27 12:47:31 AM  
Vangor: Well, firstly I am bored and waiting for my dinner to finish cooking so don't take me too seriously, however, you do realize my argument has been that your position is, regardless of the appearance of neutrality, congruent with atheism, right?

Sure. Although atheists believe that there isn't a God. At least in common usage. I simply don't know.
 
2009-03-27 12:47:43 AM  
ninjakirby: I think basic rhetoric/logic should be introduced in junior high, or at least Highschool.

Couldn't agree more. It's amazing how many people think "Well you knew what I meant" justifies improper usage of terminology in any technical thread. It also really bugs me when people use "It's only a word" in the same-sex marriage threads. Being raised by a rhetorician really gives you a first hand view at just how powerful "just a word" can be, and anyone who has experience in debates knows that relinquishing control of the language to your opponent is rhetorical suicide.
 
2009-03-27 12:47:43 AM  
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?


SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT
 
2009-03-27 12:47:52 AM  
Kubo: If evolutionary theories qualify as scientific, then their tenets should be regularly evaluated.

Fo sho. I doubt anybody in here disagrees with you, it's just that they're used to "weaknesses" being used by people unconcerned about the pragmatic benefit of exploring weaknesses.
 
2009-03-27 12:48:40 AM  
Kubo: If evolutionary theories qualify as scientific, then their tenets should be regularly evaluated.

Er..yeah. Like they are every single day by thousands of scientists.
But what is it exactly that you want school kids to do?
 
2009-03-27 12:48:56 AM  
foxy_canuck:
Science is about acknowledging what the evidence points to, and being willing to let go, or modify when new evidence is found. If we accept one method or theory about things, we'd never have progressed from Newtonian, to relativistic, to standard model gravity.


Word.
 
2009-03-27 12:49:59 AM  
bartink: You are assuming that it would be worth to teach something to students that don't have the sophistication or brains to get.

Yeah, screw teaching things to the uneducated, that's totally pointless.

zeph`: ninjakirby: reason

Speaking of reason - the buses in my cities have started bearing the atheist ads. I proudly rode a bus this afternoon that said "God probably doesn't exist, so get on with living your lives".


The buses in my area are emission free hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Assumiong that ad campaign gets going down here, I'll be able to proudly state I have the best buses ever*.

*if you ignore the vomit and bums.
 
2009-03-27 12:50:01 AM  
CDP: 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)


CDP's profile>

Ah. Here we see the product of a Texas education.
 
2009-03-27 12:50:01 AM  
bartink: He knew exactly what I meant. So did the guy that is nitpicking. So do you.

Murkanen: It's amazing how many people think "Well you knew what I meant" justifies improper usage of terminology in any technical thread.

Missed it by a minute and twenty-one seconds.
 
2009-03-27 12:50:29 AM  
I grew up reading Chick tracks as my mom worked in a Christian bookstore and I had lots of time to kill hanging out there. Being a scholarly lad, I read as much as I could while being bored. Chick tracks were very entertaining and a fun read, while being totally insane, even to a 14 year old. Ever read the Satan Seller by Mike Warnke? Funny guy, but totally lied his ass off in the book. If I can find tons of humor in these things as a teenager, I'm amazed at the adults that take this all seriously!

Science and religion don't agree. Duh. If you want your kids to learn about evolution and science, public schools are the place. If you would rather they learn about creationism and Jesus riding dinosaurs, send them to religious school. As we all know, a fundamentalist religious education works out very well. Many schools in Iran and Afghanistan are proof.
 
2009-03-27 12:51:35 AM  
zeph`: That's a product of our flawed system. There's nothing physiologically preventing a student of high school age from being able to apprehend fairly advanced concepts. A better education from the ground up would produce students better able to cope with more advanced concepts on average and earlier.

Its not just the system. Its the genetics and the reality of what kids bring to the table.

Even in good schools with good parents and smart kids, that stuff is over their head to teach it to them all.

If you want an honors class for that, I got no problem. But I suggest teaching to a group of kids that are looking at you like a cow looks at a new fence and see what you think then.

Half of everyone is too stupid to be considered average. The system that let them down was their parents genetics. There ain't no fixin' that.
 
2009-03-27 12:51:42 AM  
Murkanen: "Well you knew what I meant"

I have a girl in my ancient philosophy class who constantly asks the most nonsensical questions I've ever had the pleasure of listening to, and ends every one with "You know what I mean?". Despite the fact that the professor is constantly puzzled as to what she could even be saying, let alone whether she's saying anything material to the discussion, she thinks that adding that one little phrase to the end of her questions somehow is helping him to understand. It's insane.

/end rant.
 
2009-03-27 12:51:57 AM  
zeph`:
Fo sho. I doubt anybody in here disagrees with you, it's just that they're used to "weaknesses" being used by people unconcerned about the pragmatic benefit of exploring weaknesses.


Fair enough. And I agree that those fundies concerned with utilizing language like this to further their agendas should be kicked squaa in the sack. It complicates matters.
 
2009-03-27 12:52:40 AM  
ninjakirby: Yeah, screw teaching things to the uneducated, that's totally pointless.

www.freethoughtpedia.com
 
2009-03-27 12:53:03 AM  
What if Einstein said: "There are weaknesses in my theory, therefore, dismiss the whole damn thing. Screw it."

No, the man used his mind and exercised his gray matter on a regular basis. I'd rather look to him for inspiration on how to think than to some nonsensical dogma handed down for generations.

Evolution FTW!
 
2009-03-27 12:53:42 AM  
zeph`: You know what I mean?"

There's a reason I keep this in my profile:


"So I implore you, I entreat you and I challenge you
to speak with conviction

to say what you believe in a manner that bespeaks the determination with which you believe it

because contrary to the wisdom of the bumper-sticker
it is not enough these days
to simply question authority

You gotta speak with it
too.
"
 
2009-03-27 12:53:55 AM  
0Icky0:
Er..yeah. Like they are every single day by thousands of scientists.
But what is it exactly that you want school kids to do?


The usual: cut up frogs, burn magnesium to see how bright it gets, balance equations, etc. But they should also know (even if they don't quite have the capacity to do it yet) that all theories are open for criticism.
 
2009-03-27 12:54:21 AM  
Murkanen: Couldn't agree more. It's amazing how many people think "Well you knew what I meant" justifies improper usage of terminology in any technical thread.

This thread is about a bunch of retards that wish to back door evolution into classrooms. Its not about the history of use of atheist and agnostic.
 
2009-03-27 12:54:42 AM  
bartink: Its the genetics and the reality of what kids bring to the table.

Research says otherwise.

bartink: Even in good schools with good parents and smart kids, that stuff is over their head to teach it to them all.

Wrong. It's a problem with value and belief sets, not quality of parenting/schooling/innate intelligence.

bartink: Half of everyone is too stupid to be considered average.

On an IQ basis. We could train the large majority of our population to do extremely well on IQ tests.

bartink: parents genetics.

No, it's self-limiting belief systems and the wrong value sets. Again, the research on the topic (if you were at all interested) might teach you a thing or two.
 
2009-03-27 12:56:10 AM  
ninjakirby: There's a reason I keep this in my profile:

"On what teachers make" is among the best videos on YouTube.
 
2009-03-27 12:57:26 AM  
zeph`: Research says otherwise.

Bell curve disagrees.

zeph`: Wrong. It's a problem with value and belief sets, not quality of parenting/schooling/innate intelligence.

Research says otherwise.

zeph`: On an IQ basis. We could train the large majority of our population to do extremely well on IQ tests.

And since we don't, its a useful tool to evaluate how bright someone is.

zeph`: No, it's self-limiting belief systems and the wrong value sets. Again, the research on the topic (if you were at all interested) might teach you a thing or two.

Actually I am interested. I also know something about what I'm talking about. Have you ever been an actual teacher?
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-27 12:58:01 AM  
Sod A Dog: CDP: Well, you sold me. Those crazy evolutionists have been wrong the whole time!

Does this mean that I have to start going to church now? GODDAMMIT!


I see now that my work here is done.

Go in peace my child

In the name of the Pasta, The Sauce, and The Garlic Toast

rAmen

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 12:59:14 AM  
bartink: Its not about the history of use of atheist and agnostic.

Now I've been caught misusing terms. Replace thread with discussion or conversation so that it can be applied properly.
 
2009-03-27 01:00:27 AM  
Seriously, I'm evolving right now! My kids are going to be awesome.
 
Displayed 50 of 908 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report