Bevets: Should this be updated to: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides one side of each question"?

I'm still waiting for you to present your side. We understand that you folks have your 'weaknesses' to evolution, but what about the strengths of Creation Science? Where is your curriculum? Where are your rigorously tested models? Where are your research labs?

Show us a single piece of scientific information, predicated upon a YEC interpretation, that has contributed to scientific understanding.

ninjakirby: Show us a single piece of scientific information, predicated upon a YEC interpretation, that has contributed to scientific understanding

I think it has successfully predicted that people would find boat-shaped rock formations near Mt. Ararat and get all excited about them.

This country is so pathetic. I'm thinking of moving to Europe.

Pathetic.

ninjakirby: I'm still waiting for you to present your side. We understand that you folks have your 'weaknesses' to evolution, but what about the strengths of Creation Science? Where is your curriculum? Where are your rigorously tested models? Where are your research labs?

Show us a single piece of scientific information, predicated upon a YEC interpretation, that has contributed to scientific understanding.

I'd still like to know how some intelligent human being looks at our broken educational system and comes to the conclusion that what is really needed is to poke a few holes in evolution.

Yeah, that will catch us up with India and China.

Seriously Bevets, how is this nonsense even in the top eleventy thousand changes that need to be made in our public school system.

Explain that.

bartink, ah the all-too universal "I know you are but what am I?". I know it's a hard thing to insult someone that's full of themselves, but my point is that you really should consider a career that doesn't poison our future generation so much. Maybe law enforcement? You get to be a big balloon of hot asshole, and nobody will judge you for bragging about inappropriate experiences irrelevant to the conversation.

Took you long enough to get in here Bevets!

/Pulls up a chair and throws some popcorn in the microwave

bravochimp: ...somebody changed the batteries in that summon card, apparently.

UltimaCS: bartink, ah the all-too universal "I know you are but what am I?". I know it's a hard thing to insult someone that's full of themselves, but my point is that you really should consider a career that doesn't poison our future generation so much. Maybe law enforcement? You get to be a big balloon of hot asshole, and nobody will judge you for bragging about inappropriate experiences irrelevant to the conversation.

Explain how you know this about me.

bartink: I'd still like to know how some intelligent human being looks at our broken educational system and comes to the conclusion that what is really needed is to poke a few holes in evolution.

As I understand it, those of the religious right often mark the turning point of American education at 1962 under the Engel v. Vitale decision striking prayer from public school. The basic, very general idea, is that we have removed God from school, so God has forsaken the children; by moving back towards a more Christian, god focused education, kids will study harder, be more focused, more willing to listen to authority (teachers), etc etc.

Of course that's my take on it as a non-conservative, so I'd be much happier to hear it from Bevets&Co.

Bevets, Bevets. When will you understand that fully stating the facts on both sides of the equation will lead to your perspective being completely doomed?

This evidence on the "other side of the equation" does not point to the existence of a mystical being who did everything. When scientists talk about examining an issue from multiple perspectives, it does not mean religion is the chief other perspective, and further that a religion merits a free pass on its ridiculous assertions. It also doesn't mean one specific religious tradition, and one specific interpretation of that tradition, gets elevated to the level of other academic subjects. What I'm saying here is that that's an entirely false equivalency.

Were we to teach "intelligent design" with the same rigorous scientific standard as we teach evolution, it would basically amount to pointing out that it's a legend from the Bronze Age that is contradicted by all available evidence we actually have, and that extremely limited technology led these Bronze Age people to develop myths about the world and humanity being created basically by a magic being. They were creative storytellers who lacked the technical ability to explain the origins of the earth and human life in any other way. There are similarities in other early myths about creation from other early civilizations who also had yet to develop the tools we currently have to examine the world and universe around us - the ancient Greeks, for example, came up with a complicated creation myth that involved multiple generations of gods and wars between them.

Now, explain to me why the Bronze Age myths of one Middle Eastern civilization are better to explain the world than the Bronze Age myths of one Aegean civilization?

Transubstantive: Took you long enough to get in here Bevets!

/Pulls up a chair and throws some popcorn in the microwave

It's too late, man. CDP won the thread an hour ago.

Sod A Dog: It's too late, man. CDP won the thread an hour ago.

I still don't understand how people fall for him. I guess folks just hit the whaar and don't read all way to the garble.

Bartink, if I you didn't get it after I directly quoted you, summarized your bragging, and then YOU went out of your way to repeat it all over again, then I don't know what else to do. Do you need a dictionary definition for "haughty", or would you prefer a diagram?

CDP: Nope not yet, actually the g/f is requesting a little high protein tonsil wash.

You're in love with a piece of medical equipment?

CDP: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."

Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature.

Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method:

i. Observation:

The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:

If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:

We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:

Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.


Putting Intelligent Design to the Test:


Table 1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):

(1) Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.
(2) Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.
(3) 'Re-use parts' over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
(4) Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).

Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Table 3.

Line of Evidence Data

(1) Biochemical complexity / Laws of the Universe.

Data (E ...

8/10 would read troll again.

/this is a troll, right?

Uneven Displacement:

Not a troll. See Poe's Law. The problem is, to be a parody, there needs to be humor. I can't see humor in it. So, maybe if you consider throwing rocks at the monkey cage to be trolling, I guess it may be. The definition of "trolling" seems to have evolved here on FARK, but I still use the root word troll. As in to fish, not to live under bridges. I don't consider him to be fishing for responses, but poking the ant's nest to liven discussion. A fine line, to be sure. I, for one, don't care for it. I would put him on ignore if I didn't love the sheer pwnage he hands Bevets when they're in a thread together. (Maybe that's why Bevets didn't show up till after CDP stated he was leaving?) I mean, once you've seen all his cartoons, the schtick loses any humor value.

Progress!


/Texan
//eats Creationists for breakfast (taste like fruit loops)

TopoGigo: Not a troll. See Poe's Law. The problem is, to be a parody, there needs to be humor. I can't see humor in it.

You don't see humor in these?











Did you get a Humerectomy or something?

ninjakirby: TopoGigo: Not a troll. See Poe's Law. The problem is, to be a parody, there needs to be humor. I can't see humor in it.

You don't see humor in these?

Me: I mean, once you've seen all his cartoons, the schtick loses any humor value.


Did you get a Humerectomy or something?

Besides, these would be the "smiley" exception in Poe's Law. Although, I have to admit, the first time I saw them, my assumption was that he was too fundy/tarded to see his cartoons weren't supporting his position. It took me a few posts to figure it out. I'm just saying that it would be nice to have some parody in the text, I guess. Just for my taste, though. They serve a purpose, and I choose to believe that he's doing it for the good of the discussion rather than personal lulz. Not that I have any evidence of that, but I choose the agitator over the lonely dickball. His Bevets smackdowns have earned him the benefit of the doubt.

TopoGigo: Me: I mean, once you've seen all his cartoons, the schtick loses any humor value.

I dunno, I crack up damn near every time. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

ninjakirby:

On further review, there appears to be at least one gif I hadn't seen, so there's that.

TopoGigo: Besides, these would be the "smiley" exception in Poe's Law.

See my earlier commentary regarding Poe's Law.

ninjakirby: TopoGigo: Me: I mean, once you've seen all his cartoons, the schtick loses any humor value.

I dunno, I crack up damn near every time. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Did you just fail at Shakespeare? Or are you suggesting that I said it's not funny because I'm scared you'll find out that I love it?

are you calling me gay?

TopoGigo: Did you just fail at Shakespeare? Or are you suggesting that I said it's not funny because I'm scared you'll find out that I love it?

are you calling me gay?

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.

ninjakirby:

OK, now you're just farking with me.

TopoGigo: ninjakirby:

OK, now you're just farking with me.

Perhaps.

That's a fun little program though. It demonstrates the power of random processes rather well, though of course the end result is pre-determined, and the information conveyed only has meaning to us, but still, fun evolutionary program.

Which of course means the intelligent design Creationists have to attack it. Sad really.

ninjakirby: TopoGigo: ninjakirby:

OK, now you're just farking with me.

Perhaps.

That's a fun little program though. It demonstrates the power of random processes rather well, though of course the end result is pre-determined, and the information conveyed only has meaning to us, but still, fun evolutionary program.

Which of course means the intelligent design Creationists have to attack it. Sad really.

I've never seen that before. I've always kind of assumed Dawkins to be preaching to the choir, and as such, never really paid attention. I don't need convincing, and Dawkins won't convince anyone who does, so I've never read his stuff. At first glance, I thought it was going to be an argument about useful DNA structure. I remember seeing something, and of course I don't remember where, debunking the long odds against happening on the structure of DNA. The argument was, it didn't have to be the useful structure of DNA, just a useful structure, thus shortening the odds considerably. Now that I think on it, it may have been amino acid chains rather than DNA. If I weren't so lazy, and if I had ever seen a Fark poster bring it up, I might Google that.

SoxSweepAgain:

ARE YOU FARKING KIDDING ME???

/You can't be serious

Uh... he's not.

CDP is not even really a troll, more like an intelligence test for FARKers. If the purposeful selection of exceptionally stupid and/or hilarious passages to quote (and the selection of websites to be even more batshiat and poorly designed than usual) didn't make it obvious enough, note the nature of the cartoons at the bottom of each post.

It's a moderately brilliant comic salute (and insult) directed at Bevets, everyone's favorite troll. Since no one's sure if Bevets was serious or a caricature himself, it's possible CDP is an alt and he was tired of us not getting the joke, and thus made it more obvious. Either way, not serious, grow a sense o' humour :-P

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS IT'S NOT NICE TO PICK ON THE RETARDED

idsfa: Sooo ... Do you accept that P or Q = Q or P?

/No, I'm not going to do the whole thing.

Er, evolution is an empirical argument, not a purely logical one. This has been pointed out enough times that us rational people don't bring that old red herring up much anymore, except as intentional non-sequitir. The confirmation of the empirical assumption is basically "it's worked so far", which makes is circular (which is why it's the empirical assumption).

Not trying to rain on your parade here, but try to graduate from the high-school tautology-in-the-definitions reordering of operations stuff and join the adults at some point.

If you want to make sure this isn't such a close vote in the future, think about voting for and/or financially supporting Judy Jennings, who is running to unseat Cynthia Dunbar in the next School Board election.

Here is her letter of introduction:

Thank you for your interest in my campaign for the State Board of Education. Election Day, November 2, 2010, seems a long way away, but given the enormity of the job ahead, it's important to start pulling together resources now for a campaign to protect our public schools.



The duties of the Board are "establishing policy and providing leadership for the Texas public school system." But incumbent board member Cynthia Dunbar calls public education a "subtly deceptive tool of perversion" and compares sending children to public school with "throwing them into the enemy's flames even as the children of Israel threw their children to Moloch."



My expertise is in education. I have a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Texas. I have worked both for the Texas Education Agency and in the private sector on accountability and assessment issues. I have the in-depth knowledge a board-member needs to help our public schools succeed.



I also have two children who are both teachers. Kevin is teaching English in South Korea, and Kari teaches elementary school in Round Rock ISD. Teaching and public education are hardly an abstraction to me.



The challenges facing Texas public schools are great, and we need members of our State Board who will focus on the real-world needs of public education in Texas today. Someone with an ax to grind has no business on the Board.



If you agree that we need change, would you please contribute $250, $500 or even $1,000 to support my candidacy? Contributions in any amount will help us reach out to parents, teachers and voters across a district that stretches from Travis to Fort Bend counties. I would also be honored to list you as a supporter of my campaign.



Though the distances are vast, I have a distinct advantage: I am the candidate who is for public education. Thank you for your consideration. I hope to have your support.



Sincerely yours,



Judy Jennings



P.S. Among our top priorities will be developing a web site that will allow me to write in depth about the real issues facing Texas public schools and through which I can communicate with anyone connected to the internet. Your early donation will provide the seed money to accomplish this. Checks can be mailed to:
Judy Jennings Campaign
PO Box 5674
Austin, TX 78763

Or contribute online at: http://www.actblue.com/page/judyjennings

chadagg

Got a link to the source for that graph? I can't find it through Google. I really want to see that data and what "other Christians" actually means.

Prospero424: chadagg

Got a link to the source for that graph? I can't find it through Google. I really want to see that data and what "other Christians" actually means.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm

It means "Not Catholic"

Bevets is a Fark controlled account.

/too soon?

Why the hell does everyone assume that criticizing Darwin's theory - which now is definitely spotty in places - means you're a farking fundie? Get a grip, haters and blamers. You can love science and want to be RATIONAL without every "let's look at the weaknesses in Darwin's theory" meaning "God created the Earth in six days and you'd better believe it!!! Bring the bible into the classroom!"

Grow up and find something else to feel smarmy and superior over.

Why the hell does everyone assume that criticizing Darwin's theory - which now is definitely spotty in places - means you're a farking fundie? Get a grip, haters and blamers. You can love science and want to be RATIONAL without every "let's look at the weaknesses in Darwin's theory" meaning "God created the Earth in six days and you'd better believe it!!! Bring the bible into the classroom!"

Please address the bold print.

I'm not saying you are wrong but please elaborate...

Can't wait.

So let's say it really began with Adam and Eve. How could humanity survive when their offspring began mating, causing countless generations of inbreeding.

Perhaps that's where cavemen came from!

DD0: So let's say it really began with Adam and Eve. How could humanity survive when their offspring began mating, causing countless generations of inbreeding.

Perhaps that's where cavemen Neo-Conservatives came from!

I have altered your post.

Pray I do not alter it further.

tanager2: Why the hell does everyone assume that criticizing Darwin's theory - which now is definitely spotty in places - means you're a farking fundie? Get a grip, haters and blamers. You can love science and want to be RATIONAL without every "let's look at the weaknesses in Darwin's theory" meaning "God created the Earth in six days and you'd better believe it!!! Bring the bible into the classroom!"

Allow me to elaborate on a_room_with_a_moose's question.

Where is evolutionary theory spotty?

Please understand that the biologists have been trying for 150 years to come up with a better explanation for the origin of species than what Darwin proposed. Do you know what they found? That Darwin had the "big picture" correct. What he didn't have was genetics and later DNA. Do you know what happened when genetics and DNA were compared with what Darwin predicted? Genetics and DNA were more accurate predictors of how evolution would occur, but again, it dovetailed nicely with what Darwan had already written. Very much the way that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity dovetailed nicely with Newton's predictions, for the portions of he universe which Newton could observe.

But please. Elaborate on how "evolution is definitely spotty". Show your work. Win a Nobel prize.

boobsrgood: "/too soon?"

It can't come soon enough.

ninjakirby: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm

It means "Not Catholic"

Ah, thanks! That's what I was hoping.

Heh, Texas is losing the most non-Catholic Christians yet has the highest growth in Catholics of any state. Gee, I wonder why?

Interesting stuff...

heinekenftw: By god, science shall prevail over superstition!


begs to differ

/open the gates!