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  
•       •       •

26975 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 | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-27 11:09:33 AM
It sickens me that people are called "pro-science" or that intelligent design is brought up at all outside religious settings. You have normal people, and idiots, that is all.
 
2009-03-27 11:10:27 AM
Befuddled: Do the intelligent design advocates believe that everything in the universe that looks ordered or structured has been purposefully designed and assembled by some intelligent thing, that such arrangements can't ever happen by chance?

No; however, they believe there is a certain threshold at which the probability of such a structure happening by chance is more absurd than believing in God.

The problem is a lack of understanding of probabilities. The chances of assembling the string ABCDEF may be one thing in and of itself, but you may also need to consider the probability of string ABCD joining to string EF, string BBCDEF getting changed to ABCDEF, string XYZABC joining DEFZYX to make XYZABCDEFGZYX and then shedding the XYZ and ZYX ends... and so on.

They also don't seem to understand the difference in probability of a pre- versus post- specified event.

And, of course, they don't seem to understand the point I raised earlier about the relation between evolution/purpose/design.

radioman_: Anything that defeats the Christers's plans to take over the country is fine by me.

This merely delays those plans.

heinekenftw: The theory of evolution is not a scientific law.
Thats why it is not called the Law of Evolution.


Correct; the "Law" involved for evolution is the Second Law of Thermodymanics; see (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178). The theory of Evolution gives a broader description of the particular phenomena resulting.

stuhayes2010: Shouldn't good teachers cover the strengths and weaknesses of all theories?

Science refers to the process of gathering evidence, forming conjectures about the evidence, developing a formal hypothesis which indicates how the current evidence may be described under the conjecture, competitive testing of all candidate hypotheses under a formal criterion for probable correctness, plus the body of hypotheses testing best thereby and which thereafter are referred to as "Theories".

In the most formal sense, the criterion used for this is a more exacting expression of Occam's Razor, which has been proven in the absolute mathematical sense in the paper "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity", by Paul M. B. Vitanyi and Ming Li (doi:10.1109/18.825807) [PostScript file here]. This shows that the most "concise" hypothesis (a function of both the bit size of the conjecture of how the data should be described, and how many bits are needed to convey all properties of the data thereby) is the one most likely to correctly describe the character of future data. Science thus becomes dependent (due to this paper) on the philosophical assumptions that propositional logic is valid for formal inference, that the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of set theory (which serve as the modern foundation for all mathematics) are self-consistent (though they need not be complete), and that Reality is relatable to Evidence.

Note that the root of the word "prove" is from the Latin probare, "to test". Thus, hypotheses that become theories may be said to have been "proven" in the sense that Science uses the word. This is distinct from the mathematical sense, in that the usual use of "proof" in mathematics indicates a rigorous derivation from axioms; however, the sense that science uses is similar to the sense that a person might seek to "prove" that their brain is not a piece of cauliflower.

It follows, therefore, that "strengths and weaknesses" or reference to particular arguments being strong and weak can only be made in terms of how one hypothesis compares relative to another. The default reference comparison is the "null hypothesis", which mathematically corresponds to simply noting there are data, and making no attempt to relate them. In the case of evolutionary biology, there are a number of competing variations which have evolved from Darwin's original concept. However, neither "creationism" nor "intelligent design" provide more than marginal improvement over the null, and are no-where near the conciseness of the Modern Evolutionary Genetic Synthesis. Similarly, discussion of "holes" and "missing transitional forms" are also misleading, since science is inherently a process for making inference from a bounded set of data to the characteristics of data we yet lack. Determining what is most probably in a hole in Evidence is fundamentally what Science is for.

Creationism and Intelligent Design advocates are thus, at best, supporters of a conjecture with roots established in religion, who do not test under the Minimum Description Length Induction criterion, and who do not gather evidence directly from reality. As such, whatever it may be that they are doing, it is not science, and does not belong in high school Science classrooms.

zeph`: 2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.

Presumes chance is constant and not a function of time, such as p(t)=10-t.

Among other errors...

Ludovicus: A "theory" is not the same thing as a "hypothesis", which is what most repugnitards treat it as.

img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.


texastag: I have been out of school for years and don't have any kids in Texas schools so I don't care what they teach.

Unfortunately, the state size and standardization of textbook purchases give it disproportionate influence on the national textbook market at the elementary level. Which means, the img150.imageshack.us board of education impacts what textbooks your schools can buy.

zeph`: 2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.
4. That first cause is a god.


5. God thus is uncaused.
6. God is nothing.

(The error is at the assertion of 2, and the inference to 3.)

zeph`: 2. A god has the power to bring himself into existence.

So, if a God can have that ability, why can't a universe?

img258.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-27 11:12:50 AM
colon_pow: 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.


You know what happened the second scientists discovered that soft tissue? They started debating and revising fossilization theory. We know the bones are old due to the radiological dating, so the debate is now focused on modifying the theory to allow for such a thing to happen.

Doesn't mean the fossils are suddenly young, just that we need to revise our theory on how things are fossilized.
 
2009-03-27 11:20:28 AM
abb3w: stuhayes2010: Shouldn't good teachers cover the strengths and weaknesses of all theories?

Science refers to the process of gathering evidence, forming conjectures about the evidence, developing a formal hypothesis which indicates how the current evidence may be described under the conjecture, competitive testing of all candidate hypotheses under a formal criterion for probable correctness, plus the body of hypotheses testing best thereby and which thereafter are referred to as "Theories".

In the most formal sense, the criterion used for this is a more exacting expression of Occam's Razor, which has been proven in the absolute mathematical sense in the paper "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity", by Paul M. B. Vitanyi and Ming Li (doi:10.1109/18.825807) [PostScript file here]. This shows that the most "concise" hypothesis (a function of both the bit size of the conjecture of how the data should be described, and how many bits are needed to convey all properties of the data thereby) is the one most likely to correctly describe the character of future data. Science thus becomes dependent (due to this paper) on the philosophical assumptions that propositional logic is valid for formal inference, that the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of set theory (which serve as the modern foundation for all mathematics) are self-consistent (though they need not be complete), and that Reality is relatable to Evidence.

Note that the root of the word "prove" is from the Latin probare, "to test". Thus, hypotheses that become theories may be said to have been "proven" in the sense that Science uses the word. This is distinct from the mathematical sense, in that the usual use of "proof" in mathematics indicates a rigorous derivation from axioms; however, the sense that science uses is similar to the sense that a person might seek to "prove" that their brain is not a piece of cauliflower.

It follows, therefore, that "strengths and weaknesses" or reference to particular arguments being strong and weak can only be made in terms of how one hypothesis compares relative to another. The default reference comparison is the "null hypothesis", which mathematically corresponds to simply noting there are data, and making no attempt to relate them. In the case of evolutionary biology, there are a number of competing variations which have evolved from Darwin's original concept. However, neither "creationism" nor "intelligent design" provide more than marginal improvement over the null, and are no-where near the conciseness of the Modern Evolutionary Genetic Synthesis. Similarly, discussion of "holes" and "missing transitional forms" are also misleading, since science is inherently a process for making inference from a bounded set of data to the characteristics of data we yet lack. Determining what is most probably in a hole in Evidence is fundamentally what Science is for.

Creationism and Intelligent Design advocates are thus, at best, supporters of a conjecture with roots established in religion, who do not test under the Minimum Description Length Induction criterion, and who do not gather evidence directly from reality. As such, whatever it may be that they are doing, it is not science, and does not belong in high school Science classrooms.


This defines "QED" :)
 
2009-03-27 11:23:42 AM
God Exists.
Creation happened.
The world is young.
The Bible is true.
Your mom is a whore.

/Only one of the above comments has been exaggerated...it will be a different one based on your view of "reality".
 
2009-03-27 11:30:48 AM
colon_pow: 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.


Here's a partial list of transitional fossils. According to the FAQ's author, it concentrates "almost exclusively on groups that left living descendants, ignoring all the hundreds of other groups and side-branches that have died out. I also skipped entire groups of vertebrates (most notably the dinosaurs and modern fish) in order to emphasize mammals". So it's just a very partial list of transitional fossils. There are more out there than are included in the list.

The Cambrian "explosion" is quite well-documented. The latest research suggests is that it was actually a smoother change. It just looks that way because the fossil record of the Precambrian is so spotty, at least partly due to lack of the correct sedimentary conditions.

However, there are still SOME fossils from the Precambrian, and when they are found, the transitional forms support the idea that diversification was well underway before the beginning of the Cambrian. Genetic research suggests that at least six major metazoan phyla appeared deep in the Precambrian, hundreds of millions of years before the oldest fossils in the fossil record.

Still, the Cambrian explosion is one of numerous examples of punctuated evolution - periods where vast numbers of new species appear in a relatively short time. This isn't surprising at all when you take into account the changes in the environment that occurred at the same time - in fact, it's predicted by the idea of survival of the fittest.

There's a ton of supporting evidence that explains both of your "problems". There's new research being done every day that further clarifies what happened. If a teacher refuses to explain them when a student asks, they're a shiatty teacher, it doesn't mean there's a huge problem with the "evolutionist" theories.

Ahh, evolution, the new geocentrism...
 
2009-03-27 11:31:51 AM
err, heliocentrism I mean.

Watch them jump all over that one mistake, too.
 
2009-03-27 11:33:50 AM
idsfa: I haven't had time to make a good "weasel words" graphic.

Hm.

zeph`: Yes, but his overarching project is ridiculous.

"Only those who attempt the ridiculous can achieve the incredible."

Sod A Dog: You're either the best troll I've ever seen

I think  Donald_McRonald is a little better, but CDP's continuing practice will doubtless improve his skill.

colon_pow: do not question the weaknesses in the theory.

Please state a weaknesses first.

img165.imageshack.us


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)?

See my prior post for full details; short form: what "weakness"?
 
2009-03-27 11:35:46 AM
proMidget: God Exists.
Creation happened.
The world is young.
The Bible is true.
Your mom is a whore.


The world is young compared to it's total theorized lifespan.
 
2009-03-27 11:36:50 AM
DemonEater: err, heliocentrism I mean.

Watch them jump all over that one mistake, too.


ZOMG SEKRET CREATIONIST!!!
 
2009-03-27 11:50:46 AM
colon_pow: 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.


A good teacher who is knowledgable about the subject could actually explain why thos are misleading questions that in no way invalidate the theory of evolution. I mean we could go with the obvious "every fossil is transitional" and then launch into a lecture on the various fossil lines that demonstrate transitions quite well as well as an explanation of what "transitional" really means in the context of fossils and evolution and how we reconstruct fossil based phylogenies. For the second question there is "define suddenly" since you know, it was only "sudden" in geological terms that are perfectly consistent with the theory of evolution and what we know about the time period.

But Creationists will just plug their ears and continue shouting their nonsense anyway and most teachers at the secondary level don't have time to adequately cover the relevant material.

maddogdelta: 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.

Not to mention that there is still some debate as to whether those really where "plasticized" soft tissue and whether the protein they extracted wasn't just contamination. There are still plenty of scientists who suspect flawed methodology and that the results aren't accurate. I was just thinking about this the other day actually, I'd like to go back (if I have time) and review the relevant material and see if any really good molecular phylogenetic/bioinformatic techniques have been used to try and resolve the question without even needing to repeat the initial experiments.
 
2009-03-27 11:59:58 AM
entropic_existence: Not to mention that there is still some debate as to whether those really where "plasticized" soft tissue and whether the protein they extracted wasn't just contamination.

I remembered hearing, somewhere...This Week in Science? That there was some dispute about this, but in my very quick search I couldn't find anything.

Again, the point of the question posed by these champion bowlers is to try to find someone they think they can stump, for instance, someone who isn't a professional in the field, and then claim that they win because they stumped a computer professional with a geology question!

That's when you know they've gone full champion bowler.
 
2009-03-27 12:03:17 PM
Oh... if anyone cares, the final vote is being live-blogged Here and Here.

Jim_Callahan: Er, evolution is an empirical argument, not a purely logical one.

However, an empirical argument requires sharing a foundation for basis of argument. Science rests on mathematics, which rests on logic. So, I start with the foundations.

Nobodyn0se: Or contribute online at: http://www.actblue.com/page/judyjennings

Quoted for the heck of it.

Bevets: Atheists would gladly accept any theory hypothesis becoming Theory on the merits ONLY if it excludes God those merits include superiority over all other alternatives under Minimum Description Length Induction.

FTFY... presuming you consider Dawkins an atheist.

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

Biological evolution subsequent to arising of the Last Universal Common Cellular Ancestor is a question independent from Abiogenesis. That said...

"Natural selection for least action", Kaila and Annila (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178).
"Minimal self-replicating systems", Robertson et al (doi:10.1039/a803602k)
"Prevolutionary dynamics and the origin of evolution", Nowak and Ohtsuki (doi:10.1073/pnas.0806714105)
"Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme", Lincoln and Joyce (doi:10.1126/science.1167856)
"A hierarchical model for evolution of 23S ribosomal RNA", Bokov and Steinberg (doi:10.1038/nature07749)

Ulyses: That does not mean you can get a man from an ape regardless of their similarities.

Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.

While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin's time.

When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazoa n-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life... which is to say, "we're still a type of ape". After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.

Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.
 
2009-03-27 12:07:22 PM
maddogdelta: entropic_existence: Not to mention that there is still some debate as to whether those really where "plasticized" soft tissue and whether the protein they extracted wasn't just contamination.

I remembered hearing, somewhere...This Week in Science? That there was some dispute about this, but in my very quick search I couldn't find anything.

Again, the point of the question posed by these champion bowlers is to try to find someone they think they can stump, for instance, someone who isn't a professional in the field, and then claim that they win because they stumped a computer professional with a geology question!

That's when you know they've gone full champion bowler.


you're a full champion badminton player
 
2009-03-27 12:12:15 PM
abb3w:

Nobodyn0se: Or contribute online at: http://www.actblue.com/page/judyjennings

Quoted for the heck of it.


Quoted so I could thank you for quoting it.
 
2009-03-27 12:17:05 PM
maddogdelta: I remembered hearing, somewhere...This Week in Science? That there was some dispute about this, but in my very quick search I couldn't find anything.

Yea there are some people who think that it is the result of bacteria coupled with contamination. I haven't checked the literature for awhile and I think the finding of other cases in other fossils add more weight to the "real protein" camp but it would be interesting for me to go back and look at it and see if there is anything to be found with the data itself.
 
2009-03-27 12:19:01 PM
Nobodyn0se: abb3w:

Nobodyn0se: Or contribute online at: http://www.actblue.com/page/judyjennings

Quoted for the heck of it.

Quoted so I could thank you for quoting it.


Quoted just for the fark of it.
 
2009-03-27 12:21:09 PM
maddogdelta: Nobodyn0se: abb3w:

Nobodyn0se: Or contribute online at: http://www.actblue.com/page/judyjennings

Quoted for the heck of it.

Quoted so I could thank you for quoting it.

Quoted just for the fark of it.


Quoted to tell people that this race will be highly contested, and every dollar and every vote counts.
 
2009-03-27 12:21:30 PM
maddogdelta: Nobodyn0se: abb3w:

Nobodyn0se: Or contribute online at: http://www.actblue.com/page/judyjennings

Quoted for the heck of it.

Quoted so I could thank you for quoting it.

Quoted just for the fark of it.


Quoted just to be annoying.
 
2009-03-27 12:30:56 PM
entropic_existence: colon_pow: 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.

A good teacher who is knowledgable about the subject could actually explain why thos are misleading questions that in no way invalidate the theory of evolution.



This is precisely why I try to be active in these threads. Occasionally, I have students who have only ever heard the creationist lies, and who come to my class trying to "stump the chump" by asking one of those "questions evil-lutionists can't answer."

They are inevitably surprised that I don't yell, don't chase them out, and instead patiently, calmly and without any hostility, answer their questions. They are downright amazed that yes, in fact, "evil-lutionists" can answer those questions, and in fact have answered them, often decades ago.

It's saddening to me that these students have been so thoroughly and consistently (and in many cases, deliberately) lied to by the people who are supposed to be teaching them "moral" behavior.

These threads give me fair warning whenever the creationists come up with a new lie, so I've seen it before my students ask.

(I also admit that these threads allow me an opportunity to say what I really think of the most malevolent, dishonest, idolatrous creationists; things that I would not ever say to my students.)
 
2009-03-27 12:31:42 PM
a_room_with_a_moose: 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.


Correct about the condition of my Mother when I was created, I thought I recognized you. You can prove something exist, easy. Proving how it was created is another thing. Do you know how I was created?

Lord_Baull: 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.


Yeah you're right, I completely don't understand the difference, thanks for clearing that up. There are two main ways of thinking when it comes to "the beginning." Nobody knows for sure how it began. If you do please enlighten me. If not then you prove what I am saying. And yes I know evolution doesn't deal with how the earth was created...thanks for clearing that up for me as well.

maddogdelta: 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!"


Nice generalizations of religions. pretty proud of ya. I chose to believe that the world was created by something other than nothing. I'm one of the ones you would group with 'religions' but I am not claiming to have all the answers. As I stated in op, nobody knows for sure. Anyone who says they do is ignorant.
maddogdelta: 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.


Isn't that what the question is? Was the world created by an all powerful being (creationism) or did it just happen out of nowhere (scienctific explanation)

The answer to your little mystery is, depends on what the investigation uncovers. So, if the investigation can uncover some pretty good explanations but no final conclusion as to how the body got there then it will remain a mystery. Kinda like the whole where did we come from and how did we get here mystery.

Renart: 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.


No, forcing a theory down someones throat is breeding hate...please read before you post. I agree that flaws and weaknesses in a theory should be critiqued. And I realize that there is a difference between Scientific theory and "supernatural speculation" but that is what the main argument is all about.
 
2009-03-27 12:35:25 PM
entropic_existence: Yea there are some people who think that it is the result of bacteria coupled with contamination. I haven't checked the literature for awhile and I think the finding of other cases in other fossils add more weight to the "real protein" camp but it would be interesting for me to go back and look at it and see if there is anything to be found with the data itself.

And the really cool part of all this isn't that someone will win the argument by quoting from a 3000 year old book.

Instead, more research will be done, more evidence will be gathered, and a consensus will be reached because the observed facts will tend to strengthen one argument over another. Then we will start to teaching about this stuff in high school classes.
 
2009-03-27 12:35:45 PM
Nobodyn0se: maddogdelta: Nobodyn0se: abb3w:

Nobodyn0se: Or contribute online at: http://www.actblue.com/page/judyjennings

Quoted for the heck of it.

Quoted so I could thank you for quoting it.

Quoted just for the fark of it.

Quoted to tell people that this race will be highly contested, and every dollar and every vote counts.


Quoted in the hope that Jennings wins.
 
2009-03-27 12:39:16 PM
Ludovicus:

Even god can't argue with that. It's all based on easily observable phenomena, and the only reason it's not proven as Law is that it takes too long to wait for valuable random mutations in a species.


Except perhaps when doing research with fruit flies, but Repubs don't want to spend money doing that. Nor do they believe in spending money on stupid shiat like volcano monitoring, because everyone knows that the cause of volcano eruptions is a lack of virgin poontang thrown in them.
 
2009-03-27 12:39:29 PM
BeefyT: Do you know how I was created?

If the intellectual dishonesty and spinning are any indication, I'd have to assume you were something laid out by Skinnyhead.
 
2009-03-27 12:45:40 PM
BeefyT: No, forcing a theory down someones throat is breeding hate...please read before you post.

How is teaching students to understand the theory of evolution "forcing a theory down someones [sic] throat"? Ruling out non-scientific theories does not force people to abandon their religious beliefs, it simply ensures that a science class is actually about science. English teachers don't teach their students how to conjugate French verbs and biology teachers shouldn't have to teach theology.
 
2009-03-27 12:46:51 PM
Murkanen: BeefyT: Do you know how I was created?

If the intellectual dishonesty and spinning are any indication, I'd have to assume you were something laid out by Skinnyhead.


bingo
 
2009-03-27 12:48:01 PM
BeefyT: Isn't that what the question is? Was the world created by an all powerful being (creationism) or did it just happen out of nowhere (scienctific explanation)

The answer to your little mystery is, depends on what the investigation uncovers. So, if the investigation can uncover some pretty good explanations but no final conclusion as to how the body got there then it will remain a mystery. Kinda like the whole where did we come from and how did we get here mystery.


Ok... So now let's go back to what the investigations are uncovering regarding the universe:
"Something from nothing" (^)
Vacuum fluctuations (^)

The problem here is that this is an area of intense interest in the Physics community, because although quite a bit is know about how the universe started, right up to within 1 second after the first expansion of the big bang....What is currently the topic of research is what happened in that first second (actually, it's closer to a tiny fraction of a second, physicists talk about "Planck time", or 10-34 sec ) and before. There are many hypothesis, and given more time, an a couple of hundred shots with the Large Hadron Collider, we might have some answers.

Are you willing to investigate these things for yourself? Or will you draw your own conclusion that because you don't understand it, nobody does?
 
2009-03-27 12:56:19 PM
Renart: BeefyT: No, forcing a theory down someones throat is breeding hate...please read before you post.

How is teaching students to understand the theory of evolution "forcing a theory down someones [sic] throat"? Ruling out non-scientific theories does not force people to abandon their religious beliefs, it simply ensures that a science class is actually about science. English teachers don't teach their students how to conjugate French verbs and biology teachers shouldn't have to teach theology.


It's not. That post was in reply to Renart. I was referring to the idea that one particular theory should be taught. I agree with what you are saying.
 
2009-03-27 12:57:59 PM
Murkanen: Nobodyn0se: maddogdelta: Nobodyn0se: abb3w:

Nobodyn0se: Or contribute online at: http://www.actblue.com/page/judyjennings

Quoted for the heck of it.

Quoted so I could thank you for quoting it.

Quoted just for the fark of it.

Quoted to tell people that this race will be highly contested, and every dollar and every vote counts.

Quoted in the hope that Jennings wins.


Quoted because once you start quoting things too much, it has a habit of getting out of control.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-27 01:02:05 PM
colon_pow: 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.


You might want to update your talking points.

This handy dandy link comes from Creation Ministries International
Under the title; Arguments we think creationist should NOT use.

There are no transitional forms.' Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it's better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: 'While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.'


Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 01:04:05 PM
maddogdelta: BeefyT: Isn't that what the question is? Was the world created by an all powerful being (creationism) or did it just happen out of nowhere (scienctific explanation)

The answer to your little mystery is, depends on what the investigation uncovers. So, if the investigation can uncover some pretty good explanations but no final conclusion as to how the body got there then it will remain a mystery. Kinda like the whole where did we come from and how did we get here mystery.

Ok... So now let's go back to what the investigations are uncovering regarding the universe:
"Something from nothing" (^)
Vacuum fluctuations (^)

The problem here is that this is an area of intense interest in the Physics community, because although quite a bit is know about how the universe started, right up to within 1 second after the first expansion of the big bang....What is currently the topic of research is what happened in that first second (actually, it's closer to a tiny fraction of a second, physicists talk about "Planck time", or 10-34 sec ) and before. There are many hypothesis, and given more time, an a couple of hundred shots with the Large Hadron Collider, we might have some answers.

Are you willing to investigate these things for yourself? Or will you draw your own conclusion that because you don't understand it, nobody does?


Until there is absolute proof, I am not willing to draw any conclusions at all. Both of these articles are "in theory."
 
2009-03-27 01:08:20 PM
BeefyT: Until there is absolute proof, I am not willing to draw any conclusions at all. Both of these articles are "in theory."

So you draw no conclusions about absolutely anything, outside of logic and mathematics?

That's gotta be fun.
 
2009-03-27 01:10:09 PM
BeefyT: Until there is absolute proof, I am not willing to draw any conclusions at all. Both of these articles are "in theory."

Where is your absolute proof of germ theory? Where is your absolute proof of gravity? Where is your absolute proof of Newtonian mechanics? Where is your absolute proof of the water cycle? Where is your absolute proof of electromagnetism? Where is your absolute proof of anything?
 
2009-03-27 01:13:43 PM
BeefyT: Renart: BeefyT: No, forcing a theory down someones throat is breeding hate...please read before you post.

How is teaching students to understand the theory of evolution "forcing a theory down someones [sic] throat"? Ruling out non-scientific theories does not force people to abandon their religious beliefs, it simply ensures that a science class is actually about science. English teachers don't teach their students how to conjugate French verbs and biology teachers shouldn't have to teach theology.

It's not. That post was in reply to Renart. I was referring to the idea that one particular theory should be taught. I agree with what you are saying.


I am Renart. And a bit confused.
 
2009-03-27 01:20:27 PM
How fragile is your god that man's science may diminish him so greatly?
 
2009-03-27 01:25:27 PM
Lord_Baull: How fragile is your god that man's science may diminish him so greatly?

Reliable sources within the creationist community assure us that their god can be defeated by tin foil.
Not much of a God, really.
That's why they worship a book instead.
 
2009-03-27 01:25:40 PM
No, not god; Zod.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-27 01:27:21 PM
BeefyT:

Until there is absolute proof, I am not willing to draw any conclusions at all. Both of these articles are "in theory."


Myth 5: Science and its Methods Provide Absolute Proof


The general success of the scientific endeavor suggests that its products must be valid. However, a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (1978) and Lopnshinsky (1993).


The problem of induction argues against proof in science, but there is another element of this myth worth exploring. In actuality, the only truly conclusive knowledge produced by science results when a notion is falsified. What this means is that no matter what scientific idea is considered, once evidence begins to accumulate, at least we know that the notion is untrue. Consider the example of the white swans discussed earlier. One could search the world and see only white swans, and arrive at the generalization that "all swans are white. " However, the discovery of one black swan has the potential to overturn, or at least result in modifications of, this proposed law of nature. However, whether scientists routinely try to falsify their notions and how much contrary evidence it takes for a scientist's mind to change are issues worth exploring.

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/scihist.html

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 01:29:03 PM
BeefyT: Until there is absolute proof, I am not willing to draw any conclusions at all.

As others have hinted, scientific proof is inherently not "absolute", due to inherent philosophical limitations. You can't even give "absolute" scientific proof your skull houses a brain and not a piece of cauliflower.

img91.imageshack.us


BeefyT: Both of these articles are "in theory."

Repeating myself...

img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.
 
2009-03-27 01:30:02 PM
 
2009-03-27 01:32:07 PM
Until there is absolute proof, I am not willing to draw any conclusions at all. Both of these articles are "in theory."

I guess I should post this again:
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.

Or do you need absolute proof before you decide it rained last night?
 
2009-03-27 01:42:51 PM
FloydA: This is precisely why I try to be active in these threads. Occasionally, I have students who have only ever heard the creationist lies, and who come to my class trying to "stump the chump" by asking one of those "questions evil-lutionists can't answer."

They are inevitably surprised that I don't yell, don't chase them out, and instead patiently, calmly and without any hostility, answer their questions. They are downright amazed that yes, in fact, "evil-lutionists" can answer those questions, and in fact have answered them, often decades ago.

It's saddening to me that these students have been so thoroughly and consistently (and in many cases, deliberately) lied to by the people who are supposed to be teaching them "moral" behavior.

These threads give me fair warning whenever the creationists come up with a new lie, so I've seen it before my students ask.

(I also admit that these threads allow me an opportunity to say what I really think of the most malevolent, dishonest, idolatrous creationists; things that I would not ever say to my students.)


I agree 100%. Granted I don't get the questions often since I'm not teaching yet, other than TA'ing a Bioinformatics lab but I like being able to address these issues to people who hopefully are honestly interested in learning.
 
2009-03-27 01:43:32 PM
Lord_Baull: Or do you need absolute proof before you decide it rained last night?

It is obviously intelligent puddle design by a designer that I won't name or speculate about at all.
 
2009-03-27 01:45:15 PM
FloydA 2009-03-27 01:25:27 PM
Reliable sources within the creationist community assure us that their god can be defeated by tin foil.
Not much of a God, really.
That's why they worship a book instead.


That must explain his self-esteem issues.
 
2009-03-27 01:46:18 PM
cthellis: Penguin Death Squads: No, not god; Zod.

He's awesome.


I'll see your god, and raise a goddess (^)
 
2009-03-27 01:50:25 PM
Lord_Baull: Until there is absolute proof, I am not willing to draw any conclusions at all. Both of these articles are "in theory."

I guess I should post this again:
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.

Or do you need absolute proof before you decide it rained last night?


I'm gonna need some proof...of the absolute kind.

/This is getting too easy
 
2009-03-27 01:50:31 PM
 
2009-03-27 01:54:16 PM
BeefyT: I'm gonna need some proof...of the absolute kind.

Why do you even bother refreshing this thread? You have no absolute proof that anyone will have updated. Or that Fark.com will still be online. Or that your computer will continue to function. Or that your microprocessor won't get fed up and run away. Or that your computer itself is actually a computer, and not a potato. Or that your eyes weren't replaced last night with golf balls, and that we are but figments of your imagination.
 
2009-03-27 01:57:03 PM
Whose alt is that?
 
Displayed 50 of 908 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report