The fact that this is even a debate is asinine. Everybody knows evolution is a crock.

Not exactly. Atheists would gladly accept any theory on the merits ONLY if it excludes God. This is like carefully examining all answers to the question 'What is 1+3?' but ONLY accepting odd numbers as valid answers (Because obviously even numbers are religious, could not be proven, and there wouldnt be anything left to study if an even number was the correct answer).

Not surprisingly, you didn't even address the question.

You gave an irrelevant argument that contained a bare assertion.

Is poor logic the tin foil hat that creationists use to keep facts out of their brainwaves?

Again: Where is evolutionary theory spotty?

The fact that this is even a debate is asinine. Everybody knows evolution is a crock.

I'm thinking you are a troll.

Even if you aren't, your profile says you love the Dixie Chicks. That lets me pretty much discount anything of substance that you might have to say.

zeph`: 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.


That's clever. Of course you've ignored the fact that given infinite time, a system will occupy all available states but not states unavailable to it. The problem is that the existence of a supernatural god by definition lies outside the set of states accessible to a system constrained by the laws of physics and causality.

A supernatural deity may exists but even the possibility that one might doesn't allow the universe, which is constrained by physical law, to jump the tracks and spontaneously create one.

foxy_canuck: 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.

You raise interesting points, but I'm just not inclined to believe you're really a foxy Canuck without pics.

alternative theories, weaknesses, limitations etc. with Darwinian evolution should be taught.

And these are...?

I'm also with captain_heroic44 on that whole pics issue.

Bevets: maddogdelta:

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.

Not exactly. Atheists would gladly accept any theory on the merits ONLY if it excludes God. This is like carefully examining all answers to the question 'What is 1+3?' but ONLY accepting odd numbers as valid answers (Because obviously even numbers are religious, could not be proven, and there wouldnt be anything left to study if an even number was the correct answer).

If you want to include Gods in a scientific theory, you need to clearly define the properties, actions, effects, etc, of a God, so that we can mathematically define one and thus know how it fits the equations.

Otherwise, your asking us to insert baseless, unrecognizable magic into equations, and since anything and everything can be explained as an act of magic, the whole theory would instantly break down.

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

It is infinitely more likely that a sentient God would create everything in 6 days 6000 years ago than that a Farker would have a girlfriend.

/except for me, of course.

zeph`:
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!

I just wanted to take a moment to laugh at this, and point out yet another flaw in the rationalizing that many insane and inane people utilize:
The line from 3 to 4 is the breakdown. If 3 happens to be true, 4 is assumed to become true... but 4 is based off of the assertion of fact rather than fact itself.

After all, why should a god necessarily exist in all times?

Note that Zeph said "A god", not "an omnipotent god". It might be Jeff, the god of biscuits... and his power could be limited to baked goods.

/I'd like to thank those 7 reps who stood against the insanity
//I'd like to biatch-smack the 7 reps who voted for fundie stupidity to be perpetuated through our schools

Abiogenesis: prove it. This is where Darwin fails.

Living things may "evolve" in the sense that their colors change and they adapt to their surroundings. That does not mean you can get a man from an ape regardless of their similarities.

Wanna biatch at one of the Repubs who tried to perpetuate the stupidity?

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/board/bios/mercer.html

Ulyses: Abiogenesis: prove it. This is where Darwin fails.

Living things may "evolve" in the sense that their colors change and they adapt to their surroundings. That does not mean you can get a man from an ape regardless of their similarities.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Darwinism. Keep trying.

Abiogenesis: prove it. This is where Darwin fails.

Did Darwin even seriously address the subject?

Living things may "evolve" in the sense that their colors change and they adapt to their surroundings. That does not mean you can get a man from an ape regardless of their similarities.

That is like saying that a person can walk from their house to their mailbox but NO WAY could they walk across a continent.

Your lack of logic is truly underwhelming.

Kaltros: Wanna biatch at one of the Repubs who tried to perpetuate the stupidity?

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/board/bios/mercer.html

Wanna try and get one of the Repubs that tried to perpetuate this stupidity off the Texas State Board of Education?

http://www.actblue.com/page/judyjennings/recipient/599520

can't believe no one posted something similar yet

Ulyses 2009-03-27 09:40:57 AM
Abiogenesis: prove it. This is where Darwin fails.

Living things may "evolve" in the sense that their colors change and they adapt to their surroundings. That does not mean you can get a man from an ape regardless of their similarities.


First prove evolution deals with the origins of life.

What I don't get is why so many people get so worked up by this. Here it is, plain and simple...nobody knows for sure, not a one of us was there when the earth was created. So, anything we believe is a theory, and we believe it, or don't believe it by having faith in that theory, whatever it may be.(i like commas).

I like quotes too


I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means.
-Clarence Darrow


"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..." - C.S Lewis

By the way, I created the universe and everything and everyone in this thread owes me your allegiance.

/bow down and suck it
//from Texas and getting a kick from this thread

BeefyT 2009-03-27 09:54:02 AM
What I don't get is why so many people get so worked up by this. Here it is, plain and simple...nobody knows for sure, not a one of us was there when the earth was created. So, anything we believe is a theory, and we believe it, or don't believe it by having faith in that theory, whatever it may be.(i like commas).

The problem is people like yourself don't understand the difference between a theory and a Theory.
Nor do you understand evolution doesn't deal with how the earth was created.

What I don't get is why so many people get so worked up by this. Here it is, plain and simple...nobody knows for sure, not a one of us was there when the earth was created. So, anything we believe is a theory, and we believe it, or don't believe it by having faith in that theory, whatever it may be.(i like commas).

Sigh.

Some theories have scads of evidence to support them.

Others do not.

I wasn't there when BeefyT was created (actually I was - your mom was HOT). I can't prove he exists. Would it be rational of me to say that BeefyT is only a theory if someone showed me BeefyT's birth certificate, driver's license and blog?

Sure, BeefyT may be a clever scam but chances are, he isn't. Let's just assume he is and play the bridge hand accordingly.

Not only does evolution have enough evidence to make it a natural law, nobody has come up with a viable alternate theory that doesn't involve magic and fairy-tale gods.

Let's just assume he is real

FTFM

Bevets: Atheists would gladly accept any theory on the merits ONLY if it excludes God.

Nobody I know, Scientist, Atheist or other rational person, have seen any entity in science quantifiable as "God". If it had been so it would certainly had been acknowledged, be sure of that! Unless this is an alt label for the unknown, the anomaly itself. Luckily this portion is steadily diminishing as progress takes place. That is the purpose of science.
So if this entity "god" exists, it's importance has always been and will always be marginal at best.

BeefyT: nobody knows for sure, not a one of us was there when the earth was created. So, anything we believe is a theory, and we believe it, or don't believe it by having faith in that theory, whatever it may be.(i like commas).

So if somebody finds a dead body in the street, it will be a permanent mystery how that body got there, or who or what killed that person, because "nobody was there".

That is the most ignorant claim creationists spout.

Faith has absolutely nothing to do with scientific study (at least beyond P | Q being logically equivalent to Q | P). To try to equate mindless dogma with actual, fact based scientific investigation is colossally ignorant and unbelievably arrogant.

I wasn't there when BeefyT was created (actually I was - your mom was HOT). I can't prove he exists. Would it be rational of me to say that BeefyT is only a theory if someone showed me BeefyT's birth certificate, driver's license and blog?
Sure, BeefyT may be a clever scam but chances are, he isn't. Let's just assume he is and play the bridge hand accordingly.

BeeftT was put on FARK by the devil to test our faith.

Bevets: Not exactly. Atheists would gladly accept any theory on the merits ONLY if it excludes God. This is like carefully examining all answers to the question 'What is 1+3?' but ONLY accepting odd numbers as valid answers (Because obviously even numbers are religious, could not be proven, and there wouldnt be anything left to study if an even number was the correct answer).

I've stated before that I would be happy to accept a God based science. Just show me the evidence. Or better yet, show me some cool technology that only works because of God. You know, say the right prayer, and the machine works, say the wrong prayer and the machine breaks...that kind of thing.

I will accept any answer that is entered using godless electromagnetism/quantum physics derived devices...like the one you used to post your non response to my previous question.

// unless you used a Mac...every fanboi knows that Steve Jobs is god..

There were puddles of liquid in front of my house last night.
I didn't see how it got there, but I heard loud, sharp noises last night. And there's similar liquid on my roof and in my trees. Strangely, the sky was covered with dark clouds.
Since I wasn't there to witness the event, I can only assume it was Intelligent Crying.

Ulyses: Abiogenesis: prove it. This is where Darwin fails.


So does the Bible fail if you can't prove a supernatural being created all life on earth in the form it is today?

BeefyT: So, anything we believe is a theory, and we believe it, or don't believe it by having faith in that theory, whatever it may be.

Wow, what a great attitude to teach children trying to learn how the world works. If you want to keep Americans fat, lazy, and stupid, encourage this kind of thinking.

"Hey, some people have a rational explanation of how species evolved, and it's based on years of study, research, evidence-gathering, and experimentation. It's one of the most fascinating scientific and human stories we have, and you can learn about it and even contribute to it if you take part in the scientific study of life, the discipline of biology. Alternatively, some people think God did it. But both theories are equally valid, so don't worry too much about it. American Idol's on."

oh boy, I sure hope we can have some bible quotes in here. I wager you unoriginal assbags will quote the same 5 quotes for the duration of the thread.

ItsJustJake 2009-03-27 10:14:48 AM
oh boy, I sure hope we can have some bible quotes in here. I wager you unoriginal assbags will quote the same 5 quotes for the duration of the thread.

Here you go: Jesus wept.

I always wondered how two little koalas hauled enough eucalyptus for a trip to the Middle East, 40 days (or is it 150?) on a boat, and a return trip across the sea.

Any creationists what to fill me in?

student: teacher, why are there no transitional fossils?
student: teacher, why did so many species appear all at once during the cambrian era?

teacher: shut up. you can't ask those questions.

ItsJustJake: oh boy, I sure hope we can have some bible quotes in here. I wager you unoriginal assbags will quote the same 5 quotes for the duration of the thread.

Oooh! I have a good one!
Revelation 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

zeph`: bartink: Go ask those kids about me.

I don't either doubt that what you've done is valuable, or would I criticize you for doing it. I hold teachers in extremely high regards.

The fact of the matter is, that what we do for kids currently is good. What you do for kids is great. What we both could do for kids is amazing. The point is not that I think there's a magic bullet philosophy cure for the problems inherent in our system - but there are clear ways in which we could produce better, smarter, more well-rounded students. Our system is not the optimal system in very obvious ways, and if that's the case then there seems to be room for improvement. The ways in which that improvement can be had, or what the nature of that improvement is, is a question of philosophy - the ways in which it will end up being done is a matter of teaching. Both of those things need to happen better if we're going to see any kind of positive change taking place - you sound like you're doing/have done your best, but I'd ask that you give the people who make it their business to wonder about the ways in which things could be better a chance to do so.

I am, like every other person, a product of a series of lucky occurrences from my birth to this day. Genetics, partly, but largely lucky circumstances. It was luck that I discovered philosophy - complete luck that I'm the person I am today rather than another (likely less clever person) person that I easily could have been had one decision been made differently. In the same way are your students a product of a series of lucky (or unlucky) circumstances that have characterizes their lives. They grow up poor, to parents that don't care as much as they could, and they develop a certain set of values and beliefs - values and beliefs that make education difficult. Values and beliefs that in, a very real psychological way, limit the things that these students can and will learn. Genetics only account for so much of any given person's potential, the rest is determined by the way in which their environment has taught them to think about the world.

You teach students to read, write, and do science - I worry about the causes behind the inability to do those things, and the ways to, as much as possible, negate those causes. One day we'll stumble on the secret of unleashing the potential that many students go through life never realizing they have, and you'll get to give that gift to them. Seems like a fair trade, no?

Hopefully you are doing something about this in the real world then.

Whats with all the references to luck? Everything makes sense when taken in context, EVERYTHING. Luck is a way of describing something you cannot explain. There is no such thing as a cosmic dice thrower who gives out luck. You work hard, you make better for your kids, they work hard or dont, use the resources around them , or dont. Has nothing to do with luck.

colon_pow: student: teacher, why are there no transitional fossils?

There are plenty of transitional fossils. Every species is in transition, so any fossil you find is transitional.

However, every time you are shown one, you put your hands over your eyes and claim you can't see any transitional fossil.


student: teacher, why did so many species appear all at once during the cambrian era?

They didn't. The Cambrian is a period of hundreds of millions of years. "Sudden" is a relative term. But if you want details, try looking at how much oxygen there was in the atmosphere before and after the Cambrian, and you will realize that with more oxygen, the planet was more suited to more varied forms of life, hence an "explosion"

teacher: shut up. you can't ask those questions.

Do you know what is funny? The only time I ever heard any teacher say that was in religion class.

Why do you hate science?

Renart: BeefyT: So, anything we believe is a theory, and we believe it, or don't believe it by having faith in that theory, whatever it may be.

Wow, what a great attitude to teach children trying to learn how the world works. If you want to keep Americans fat, lazy, and stupid, encourage this kind of thinking.

"Hey, some people have a rational explanation of how species evolved, and it's based on years of study, research, evidence-gathering, and experimentation. It's one of the most fascinating scientific and human stories we have, and you can learn about it and even contribute to it if you take part in the scientific study of life, the discipline of biology. Alternatively, some people think God did it. But both theories are equally valid, so don't worry too much about it. American Idol's on."

So you're saying we should teach children that there is a truth, when we really don't know what it is? So you're telling me to lie? How about we explain the theories that are out there, what we believe in and why, and let them choose for themselves what they want to believe in. In your case, what happens is one theory is shoved down a kids throat until they can't take it anymore and then one day, when they begin to think things out for themselves, they believe what they want to believe anyway...eventually learning to hate people like you. Keep shoving your theory down kid's throats, your're breeding a generation of hate...awesome!

maddogdelta: colon_pow: student: teacher, why are there no transitional fossils?

There are plenty of transitional fossils. Every species is in transition, so any fossil you find is transitional.

oh that's rich Maddog.

here's another.

student: teacher, why was protein found in T-rex fossils when they are supposed to be millions of years old?

teacher: shut up. never ask that question in public school again. it's against the law. don't make me report you.

Ulyses: Abiogenesis: prove it. This is where Darwin fails.

Living things may "evolve" in the sense that their colors change and they adapt to their surroundings. That does not mean you can get a man from an ape regardless of their similarities.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

How do you not see that adapting to surroundings and changing colours is exactly what eventually lead the apes down out of the trees and onto Wall Street?

I despair.

colon_pow: here's another.

student: teacher, why was protein found in T-rex fossils when they are supposed to be millions of years old?

I get it! Let's ask a question of someone who is not an expert in the field...If he doesn't know the answer, the whole field is disproven!

Here ^{(^)} are ^{(^)} a few links ^{(^)}. I got them by doing the arduous task of typing "protein fossil rex" into google. I'm sure that wouldn't have been too hard for you, if you were genuinely interested in an answer.


teacher: shut up. never ask that question in public school again. it's against the law. don't make me report you.

As I said before, the only place I have seen teachers discouraging children from asking questions is in religion class. Do you have any documentation where children asking "evolution disproving" questions have been told to shut up? Outside of a Chick tract, I mean.

BeefyT: So you're saying we should teach children that there is a truth, when we really don't know what it is? So you're telling me to lie? How about we explain the theories that are out there, what we believe in and why, and let them choose for themselves what they want to believe in. In your case, what happens is one theory is shoved down a kids throat until they can't take it anymore and then one day, when they begin to think things out for themselves, they believe what they want to believe anyway...eventually learning to hate people like you. Keep shoving your theory down kid's throats, your're breeding a generation of hate...awesome!

What kind of whaargarbl are you spouting? Do you know that gravity is "just a theory"? That germ theory i just a theory? That all of science is based on the idea that we still have more to learn?

The only group claiming to have the inerrant, correct answers are religions. "Goddidit" is the only answer they are willing to give, and they can't be shaken from that.

So who is lying? The one person who says that mankind's current understanding of __________ is ______________ but that may change as we learn more, or the person who says "all the answers are in this book!"

Hey where is SkinnyHead and his cheer-leading of the democratic system?

BrotherThaddeus: Hey where is SkinnyHead and his cheer-leading of the democratic system?

He's only in favor of democracy when people vote the right way.

BeefyT: So you're saying we should teach children that there is a truth, when we really don't know what it is? So you're telling me to lie? How about we explain the theories that are out there, what we believe in and why, and let them choose for themselves what they want to believe in. In your case, what happens is one theory is shoved down a kids throat until they can't take it anymore and then one day, when they begin to think things out for themselves, they believe what they want to believe anyway...eventually learning to hate people like you. Keep shoving your theory down kid's throats, your're breeding a generation of hate...awesome!

Can I get a LOL WUT? pear up in this thread? Teaching children the scientific method and scientific reasoning about biological change over time is breeding hate? Good science teachers don't force students to "accept" or "believe in" evolution; they teach them to understand the theory and the evidence it is based upon. If the students choose to believe something else afterward, that's their decision. The only thing scientists insist on is that any critiques of a theory's "weaknesses" be carried out scientifically, without bringing supernatural speculation into it. Science deals with empirical evidence, things that can be detected, measured, seen. God is not such a thing.

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.

My first science class in 9th grade, we not only learned the Bohr model of the atom, but alternative models that people came up with, how those alternative models don't hold up well, and how the Bohr model makes sense as best as we can measure.

It would be irresponsible to teach evolution and not provide alternative theories. NOTE: Creationism is not an alternative theory to evolution, and the people who go on about it don't really understand science at all.


Well put. :)

Creationism is religious, not science-based. Thus it is not a real scientific alternative.

BrotherThaddeus: Hey where is SkinnyHead and his cheer-leading of the democratic system?

ACTIVISTSARBL!!!

So exactly when will we begin teaching some real scripture -- like the POPUL VUH?

/Teach the real controversy

colon_pow: teacher, why are there no transitional fossils?
Teacher: Why don't we see fossils of every living creature that ever existed? Learn about how fossils are created, then you'll have your answer. Transitional species exist even today. Take a look at the lungfish, whales with finger bones, humans with appendixes and wisdom teeth and pythons with remnants of legs.

colon_pow: teacher, why did so many species appear all at once during the cambrian era?
Teacher: By "all at once" I assume you mean over a period of millions of years, but when placed in the perspective of 6 billion years of Earth's existence, it seems like it occured "all at once."

Why don't you go to school? You might actually learn something.