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  
•       •       •

26981 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
 
2009-03-26 06:05:11 PM  
Ramen.
 
2009-03-26 06:06:03 PM  
Farkin' A!
 
2009-03-26 06:10:01 PM  
Good. Congratulations, Texas. Once again, the forces of sanity prevail.

Sad that it was so close though.
 
2009-03-26 06:10:50 PM  
Science and rational thought breaking out in Texas. Good.
 
2009-03-26 06:16:22 PM  
Good news..

Now maybe they can turn their attention to more important things, like fixing the perpetually corrupt and dysfunctional DISD administration.
 
2009-03-26 06:38:45 PM  
Thank goodness. Love my state, hate the fundies.
 
2009-03-26 06:46:15 PM  
2wolves: Science and rational thought breaking out in Texas. Good.

Hey, whoa. Don't put too much pressure on us.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 07:04:01 PM  
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 (Experiment)

High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Specified complexity found in the laws of the universe may be another.

Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)

Yes.

Line of Evidence Data

(2) Fossil Record

Data (Experiment)

Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example.

Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)

Yes.

Line of Evidence Data

(3) Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics

Data (Experiment)

Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example.

Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)

Yes.

Line of Evidence Data

(4) DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality

Data (Experiment)

Increased knowledge of genetics has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but discovery of function may be expected (or lack of current function still explainable under a design paradigm).

Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)

Yes.


Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 07:06:11 PM  
i2.photobucket.com
i2.photobucket.com

Sadness:

Barbara Cargill now has some more nasty amendments to ESS. As usual, she is springing them on the SBOE members and public at the last minute without explanation and expert evaluation. She will need a majority vote to get these passed. Will Agosto give the Republicans the vote they need to further damage ESS? I can't get a copy of these amendments right now. However, the first one she wants is to strike the current standard for the Big Bang and remove the 14 billion year old age from it. She is promoting a Young Earth Creationist view, of course. Many times in the past the SBOE has changed standards that mention millions and billions of years to simple "a long time ago." She wants to substitute a standard from Astronomy that simply adds, "add current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe" to the Big Bang standard 4A. Cargill's amendment to strip a very ancient number of years one that is equivocal about the age of the universe passed 11-3, with only Knight, Miller, and Nunez voting No. So the SBOE holds true to its wonderful tradition of stripping any date older than 10,000 years from science standards!


What a useless and do-nothing amendment that only works to justify the already present belief many children are raised with out there. But at least we don't have to worry about teachers undermining education legally.

Still gotta worry about them doing it though.
 
2009-03-26 07:42:44 PM  
Not so fast; the fat lady hasn't sung yet, and the creationists are still trying:
Link (new window)
 
2009-03-26 08:30:18 PM  
I almost went extinct waiting for that page to load. Ha-HA!
 
2009-03-26 08:33:28 PM  
CDP, how is that experiment falsifiable? Your "experiment" read more like an observation. What exactly is the test, and how is the test falsifiable? That's what makes a scientific experiment a legitimate experiment.
 
2009-03-26 08:42:30 PM  
Talon: CDP, how is that experiment falsifiable?

The test is all in the image.
 
2009-03-26 08:47:21 PM  
Interesting the House education committee voted today to a sunset review of the BOE.

And a pro-science member who will provide a swing vote will attend tomorrow's session, when the standards are finalized.

I expect the politico-religionists will get some modest gains this week, and at least set the stage to waste precious education funds on lawsuits once some benighted teacher attempts to proselytize on the taxpayer's dime, but it won't be the coup that the Discovery Institute, who is behind this whole fiasco, is hoping for.

The ironic thing is that politico-religionism is a greater threat to religious freedom than any science book or ACLU or fossil ever was.

.
 
2009-03-26 08:52:56 PM  
CDP: 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.


You/they could have just written "tautology" and saved on bandwidth.

1: Complex things are intelligently designed.
2: We can prove things are intelligently designed by looking at how complex they are.
3: Things are complex.
4: Things are intelligently designed.

Step 1 is assumed, and not supported by anything. "CSI" is one of the most hilarious things I've seen.
 
2009-03-26 09:03:50 PM  
ninjakirby: Talon: CDP, how is that experiment falsifiable?

The test is all in the image.


this.

and despite the image, people still fall for it thread after thread.
 
2009-03-26 09:04:27 PM  
Thank god.
 
2009-03-26 09:04:31 PM  
You know, it just seems kind of sad that, during the decline of Western Civilization, a group calling itself "conservative" would be happily building the coffin

.
 
2009-03-26 09:05:10 PM  
I knew there couldn't be an evolution thread without CDP coming in with blocks of text that have no point.
 
2009-03-26 09:05:35 PM  
FTFA:The seven board members and social conservative groups supporting the rule have argued that its absence would discourage classroom discussion about evolution. They have cited alleged flaws in Darwin's theory that they contend should be covered in classes and textbooks.

Why won't these cretins learn that evolutionary theory has changed (evolved) since Darwin? The evidence for evolution has increased dramatically as well. But what do I know? I don't have an imaginary degree in Law...
 
2009-03-26 09:06:23 PM  
As a Texas resident I am happy that at least 7 of our board members have brains.


Ramen!!!
 
2009-03-26 09:06:40 PM  
So, if they want to show "strengths and weaknesses" then they'll show the weaknesses of intelligent design, right?

right?
 
2009-03-26 09:06:44 PM  
That'll do Texas...that'll do
 
2009-03-26 09:08:30 PM  
Texas? THE Texas? I'm not ashamed of my state right now? It's a strange feeling. I'm not sure I can get used to this.
 
2009-03-26 09:08:37 PM  
What happened to the little quotes button?
 
2009-03-26 09:08:41 PM  
SleepyMcGee: FTFA:The seven board members and social conservative groups supporting the rule have argued that its absence would discourage classroom discussion about evolution. They have cited alleged flaws in Darwin's theory that they contend should be covered in classes and textbooks.

Why won't these cretins learn that evolutionary theory has changed (evolved) since Darwin? The evidence for evolution has increased dramatically as well. But what do I know? I don't have an imaginary degree in Law...


They are not interested in learning. They are interested in carrying out the wedge strategy, and insinuating a narrow interpretation of scripture into public education. They themselves have published documents plainly stating this. This is a matter of public record.

.
 
2009-03-26 09:09:29 PM  
CDP: 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.


Argh. This is hideously incorrect. My brain hurts from the stupid.
 
MBK [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 09:09:31 PM  
...

The fact that it was a 7-7 decision does NOT give me hope for the future.
 
2009-03-26 09:09:50 PM  
FloydA: Once again, the forces of sanity prevail.

Somewhat.

CDP: Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer

Technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). ID does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, or even at present explicit purpose to claim. No evidence, no purpose, no point, no theory, no science, NO COOKIE!

Bloody William: "CSI" is one of the most hilarious things I've seen.

Like anyone would believe anything a furry has to say....
 
2009-03-26 09:10:20 PM  
If you believe in "creation science," you'd better get checked for Down Syndrome.
 
2009-03-26 09:10:37 PM  
DistendedPendulusFrenulum: And a pro-science member who will provide a swing vote will attend tomorrow's session, when the standards are finalized.

It's ridiculous that these things haven't been finalized already. This is what, the second or third vote that has gone towards striking the ridiculous passage, and yet they still keep holding votes for it? What on earth for?
 
2009-03-26 09:10:58 PM  
Raptor Jesus or Raptorcopter?
 
2009-03-26 09:11:03 PM  
Texas is the only thing that keeps me going. We didn't take the "ownyou" dollars from the assholes in DC and we are set to pass a law telling employers to fark off over their ban on guns in the cars of employees in their lots. Texas is still quite a respectful place. No need to piss off a neighbor and get shot. It works here. Of course we aren't allowing ourselves to be run by criminals such as is the case in places like Oakland and Chicago.
 
2009-03-26 09:11:34 PM  
Hopefully Kansas will come around soon as well.
 
2009-03-26 09:12:51 PM  
Well, of course not! He'll be walking on foot.

www.howwedrive.com

With Texas' anti-dinosaur and anti-zombie rulings, what CAN you ride?.
 
2009-03-26 09:12:59 PM  
TheWhaleShark: CDP: 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.

Argh. This is hideously incorrect. My brain hurts from the stupid.


More to the point, there have been lab-reproducible studies that show several structures that continue to work with components missing, removed, or not having evolved yet. Interestingly, some structures performed a different function with the part removed--and in all cases, a biologically useful function.

Of course the IDiots have no use for this type of real science, because they are a politico-religionist propaganda outfit whose sole purpose is to "replace science with a theistic view of the universe," IN THEIR OWN WORDS.
.
 
2009-03-26 09:13:03 PM  
I'm somewhat impressed, Texas. Keep this up and I might just come back.

/yes that is a threat
 
2009-03-26 09:13:48 PM  
The war between science and religion has been over for 500 years. Science won. That's why we no longer live in the dark ages and we're able to communicate with each other over the internet.

The only reason there is a debate about science and religion now is because the religious right has been shot down by the constitution over and over again in their attempt to get religion into our public schools, so now they dishonestly try to repackage their religion as "science" in an attempt to shoe horn it into public schools.

In the end all they've accomplished is to expose their ignorance and dishonesty.

Please keep your religion and it's inherent ignorance and dishonesty in your own homes and places of worship.
 
2009-03-26 09:14:19 PM  
dinosaurfanfiction.com
 
2009-03-26 09:14:20 PM  
Yay! Now come on, Oklahoma, make mama proud.
 
2009-03-26 09:14:23 PM  
yay! i have a reason to be proud of my state for once!
 
2009-03-26 09:14:49 PM  
The dollars being printed by the government are creating government jobs. Not good if you aren't in the club and have no desire to be in the club. We are going to need to downsize the federal government in earnest or there's going to be big problems. Hopefully if it comes to that, the one plank of the federal government, the military, will be ready to set things right. That's no sure thing anymore though if the democrats go through with their plan to create a domestic praetorian guard to defend their privilege.
 
2009-03-26 09:14:52 PM  
i194.photobucket.com
i194.photobucket.com
i194.photobucket.com
i194.photobucket.com
i194.photobucket.com
i194.photobucket.com
i194.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 09:15:34 PM  
I know they'll never put this in any high school textbook ever, but here's the "teach the controversy" language I'd like to see about evolution: While nearly every single scientist alive agrees that evolution happens, there's considerable debate about how and why. Biologists and paleontologists disagree about the causes, mechanisms, and time scales involved.

/you me and everyone else was taught the biologists' point of view
//very long timescales like the ones paleontologists work with point to very different answers
///didn't know that until I talked to a paleontologist
////i can haz raptor jesus?
 
2009-03-26 09:16:43 PM  
Wow, way to crush the hopes of children all over Texas. Why don't you just go ahead and tell them Santa Claus isn't real while you're at it. Way to go, horriblepersonmitter!
 
2009-03-26 09:17:02 PM  
Too close for comfort. I hate parts of my state sometimes
 
2009-03-26 09:17:03 PM  
Hooray for my old home state!
 
2009-03-26 09:17:43 PM  
By god, science shall prevail over superstition!
 
2009-03-26 09:18:08 PM  
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.
 
2009-03-26 09:18:16 PM  
Murkanen: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: And a pro-science member who will provide a swing vote will attend tomorrow's session, when the standards are finalized.

It's ridiculous that these things haven't been finalized already. This is what, the second or third vote that has gone towards striking the ridiculous passage, and yet they still keep holding votes for it? What on earth for?


Lord, I have no idea how bureaucratic processes work in Texas. I do know that one member of the board could not make it today, and that this person is pro-science.

The legislature may make an end-run around the whole fiasco as well.

It's really odd--I remember the Cold War and our commitment to real science back then. This sort of thing would never have happened back then. Could you imagine US researchers attempting to engineer vaccines against bio weapons without the predictive power of the theory of evolution? Ask the dept of cell and molecular biology at Tulane, which is contracting with the US Army right now. The Army votes for Evolution when it comes to the safety of our soldiers.

BTW, IDiots, where are the industrial or medicinal applications for Intelligent Design? What's that? None? That's because it's not science!

.
 
2009-03-26 09:18:19 PM  
The Southern Dandy: The war between science and religion has been over for 500 years. Science won. That's why we no longer live in the dark ages and we're able to communicate with each other over the internet.

The only reason there is a debate about science and religion now is because the religious right has been shot down by the constitution over and over again in their attempt to get religion into our public schools, so now they dishonestly try to repackage their religion as "science" in an attempt to shoe horn it into public schools.

In the end all they've accomplished is to expose their ignorance and dishonesty.

Please keep your religion and it's inherent ignorance and dishonesty in your own homes and places of worship.


Science without religion is bound to kill you. Remember, the biggest reason for our problems today is a lack of shame and honor - you know, the little angel on your shoulder named morality. That's the direct result of the assault on common sense taking place daily by lawyers, people who exist and prosper only if others suffer and feel anger.
 
2009-03-26 09:18:34 PM  
DeadZone: So, if they want to show "strengths and weaknesses" then they'll show the weaknesses of intelligent design, right?

right?


Nope.

Old text:
"The student is expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."

New text:
"The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing"

ID isn't a scientific explanation. So under the old text they wouldn't need to show its strength or weaknesses.
 
2009-03-26 09:19:32 PM  
i116.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 09:20:08 PM  
Space_Fetus: Wow, way to crush the hopes of children all over Texas. Why don't you just go ahead and tell them Santa Claus isn't real while you're at it. Way to go, horriblepersonmitter!

Crushing hopes?
By not taxing the hell out of business and creating jobs?
You really don't get it, do you? Obviously you don't. Texas and Crushed Hope sit on opposite ends of the bench.
 
2009-03-26 09:21:18 PM  
Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: The dollars being printed by the government are creating government jobs. Not good if you aren't in the club and have no desire to be in the club. We are going to need to downsize the federal government in earnest or there's going to be big problems. Hopefully if it comes to that, the one plank of the federal government, the military, will be ready to set things right. That's no sure thing anymore though if the democrats go through with their plan to create a domestic praetorian guard to defend their privilege.

5/10. Way too obvious.
 
2009-03-26 09:21:41 PM  
Bloody William: You/they could have just written "tautology" and saved on bandwidth.

It's not even a tautology; it's a fallacy:

1. If A, then B (if life were created intelligently, it would be complex)
2. B (life is complex)
3. Therefore, A (life was created intelligently)

By the same argument: If Michael Jordan were President, he would be famous. Michael Jordan is famous. Therefore Michael Jordan is President.
 
2009-03-26 09:21:46 PM  
Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: Space_Fetus: Wow, way to crush the hopes of children all over Texas. Why don't you just go ahead and tell them Santa Claus isn't real while you're at it. Way to go, horriblepersonmitter!

Crushing hopes?
By not taxing the hell out of business and creating jobs?
You really don't get it, do you? Obviously you don't. Texas and Crushed Hope sit on opposite ends of the bench.


I guess not. *sigh* on the plus side I GIS'd "God did it" and came across this gem on the first page no less. Enjoy!

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2009-03-26 09:22:30 PM  
scienceblogs.com
 
2009-03-26 09:22:36 PM  
Bloody William:
1: Complex things are intelligently designed.
2: We can prove things are intelligently designed by looking at how complex they are.
3: Things are complex.
4: Things are intelligently designed.


5: God is complex.
6: Who/What Designed God?
 
2009-03-26 09:23:33 PM  
This is a great day in the state of Texas!
 
2009-03-26 09:23:42 PM  
CDP:
Wow, when did Richard Dawkins become a zoologist? That's a spectacular job of taking a quote out of context as well. Not only is your argument baseless, it's wrong.
 
2009-03-26 09:24:20 PM  
Space_Fetus: 1.bp.blogspot.com

Beyond creepy.
 
2009-03-26 09:25:05 PM  
ibanezdude: i116.photobucket.com

I love that card.
 
2009-03-26 09:25:38 PM  
ne2d: Bloody William: You/they could have just written "tautology" and saved on bandwidth.

It's not even a tautology; it's a fallacy:

1. If A, then B (if life were created intelligently, it would be complex)
2. B (life is complex)
3. Therefore, A (life was created intelligently)

By the same argument: If Michael Jordan were President, he would be famous. Michael Jordan is famous. Therefore Michael Jordan is President.


True. It seems like a tautology, though. Complex things are designed, therefore things that are complex are designed. The "observation" and "experiment" steps are functionally identical in that they both assert that complexity automatically means something is designed.

Of course, not all fallacies are tautologies. And not all tautologies are fallacies. For example, I farkin' love cheese quesadillas.
 
2009-03-26 09:25:51 PM  
So we can't teach the kids good science? Ya know, the whole looking for flaws and then returning with a new theory if applicable thing? Not that I care one way or the other but, really, being taught to look at theories scientifically instead of blind belief might actually have some benefits.
 
2009-03-26 09:27:27 PM  
The solution to the 'controversy' is very simple:

Anyone who does not believe in evolution only gets basic penicillin when they get an infection (otherwise they'd be hypocrites).

The rest of us can use the antibiotics designed to fight the evolved bacteria.

In a few decades there will be no more argument.
 
2009-03-26 09:27:27 PM  
bartink: Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: The dollars being printed by the government are creating government jobs. Not good if you aren't in the club and have no desire to be in the club. We are going to need to downsize the federal government in earnest or there's going to be big problems. Hopefully if it comes to that, the one plank of the federal government, the military, will be ready to set things right. That's no sure thing anymore though if the democrats go through with their plan to create a domestic praetorian guard to defend their privilege.

5/10. Way too obvious.


And in the wrong thread.

Your rant could be better posted in the Mac vs PC thread..
 
2009-03-26 09:28:37 PM  
Malaclypse the Younger: CDP:
Wow, when did Richard Dawkins become a zoologist? That's a spectacular job of taking a quote out of context as well. Not only is your argument baseless, it's wrong.


psssst....look at the pictures...
 
2009-03-26 09:29:02 PM  
Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: Science without religion is bound to kill you. Remember, the biggest reason for our problems today is a lack of shame and honor - you know, the little angel on your shoulder named morality.

Religion and morality are not synonyms.
 
2009-03-26 09:29:10 PM  
One of the biggest difficulties about evolution is that many people don't get that it's an ongoing, dynamic process (it's still happening in YOUR OWN FAMILY)...
and it takes a looooong time for changes to really show up.

This is why 'the study of fruit flies' is important...they're fairly complex gene-wise, but their generations are measured in days rather than decades.
Speeds up the study process enormously...

We (humans) are NOT a finished product...we're still evolving.
We can't help it; we're alive, we reproduce, and we've got a really complex genetic code, an expanding population, and an increasingly farked-up environment that our descendants will have to deal with.
So...we evolve, trying to come up with a genetic combination that will allow for maximum reproduction with what we've got to work with.

Each generation is a snapshot, not a 'finished product' or 'end of the line'.


/ I hope...
 
2009-03-26 09:29:41 PM  
Malaclypse the Younger: Wow, when did Richard Dawkins become a zoologist?

In 1962 when he graduated from Balliol College, Oxford?
 
2009-03-26 09:30:16 PM  
Tsk Tsk Cyborg77,

If we Teach one, we have to teach them all!.

img291.imageshack.us

Separation of Church and state is there to protect everyone.
If you teach one religion in school, you have to teach them all, and Im gona take a wild guess that these people would have a problem with teaching the Hindu or Native American creation myths.

/hot like the sun going around the earth.
 
2009-03-26 09:30:37 PM  
I envy the satisfaction the vulgar Christian right will get from feeding their persecution fetish this scrap of conflict with reason.
 
2009-03-26 09:32:40 PM  
DistendedPendulusFrenulum: This sort of thing would never have happened back then.

The Aguillard ruling only happened in '87, and before that evolution only really started getting wide spread acceptance in the classroom during the 60's.

/And, of course, Scalia was one of the dissenting Justices in the '87 opinion
 
2009-03-26 09:33:04 PM  
For once, Texas actually does something right. I live in Dallas, and was afraid I would have to be disgusted YET AGAIN by my state and its usual, fundie-Christian superstitious nonsense. I'm glad to see they'll be teaching science, and not religious mythology, in schools.

i174.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 09:33:13 PM  
SleepyMcGee:
FTFA:The seven board members and social conservative groups supporting the rule have argued that its absence would discourage classroom discussion about evolution. They have cited alleged flaws in Darwin's theory that they contend should be covered in classes and textbooks.

Why won't these cretins learn that evolutionary theory has changed (evolved) since Darwin?


They know. They just lie, and lie, and lie.

Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes:
That's no sure thing anymore though if the democrats go through with their plan to create a domestic praetorian guard to defend their privilege.

LOLOLOL because a Praetorian Guard is always such a good idea for would-be despots. Wikipedia has a handy list of which Emperors they themselves assassinated.
 
2009-03-26 09:34:30 PM  
Kali-Yuga: Bloody William:
1: Complex things are intelligently designed.
2: We can prove things are intelligently designed by looking at how complex they are.
3: Things are complex.
4: Things are intelligently designed.

5: God is complex.
6: Who/What Designed God?


Thomas Aquinas used that sort of logic over 800 years ago with his five-step proof of god. To simplify it to the point of being downright laconic:

1: Things change.
2: Change must be made to happen.
3: Since things exist, the changes that caused them to exist must also have existed, out of necessity.
4: For everything that exists, something must exist that is greater than all other things of its kind.
5: Everything goes according to a design.

Super-condensed summary:

God makes things happen. We know god exists because things happen.

It... um... doesn't really work, and compared to his extensive writings on ethics and virtue, that little slice of philosophical bullshiat, while greatly representative of intelligent design, simply doesn't hold up under any deep scrutiny.
 
2009-03-26 09:34:42 PM  
Softens_hands_while_you_do_the_dishes: Science without religion is bound to kill you.

Nonsense. The idea you seem to be suggesting is that only religious people can have morals, which is absolute rubbish.
 
2009-03-26 09:35:44 PM  
UnspokenVoice: So we can't teach the kids good science? Ya know, the whole looking for flaws and then returning with a new theory if applicable thing? Not that I care one way or the other but, really, being taught to look at theories scientifically instead of blind belief might actually have some benefits.

Actually this should stop people from teaching pure stupidity in a science class. The teaching of the leading theories and the scientific method used to develop them has been the corner-stone of grade school/high school science classes for generations.

There is no justification for throwing in religious based garbage that does not even attempt to pass the basic rigors of a scientific theory. ID is not an alternate scientific theory because it is not science (by a long shot).

Destroying a child's education in a feeble attempt to further ingrain your religious indoctrination is nothing more than child abuse.
 
2009-03-26 09:36:25 PM  
Oh thank you sweet, merciful Jeebus, I weep for my state a lot but at least today I can be halfway proud
 
2009-03-26 09:36:49 PM  
In b4 Bevets!

Good for Texas.
 
2009-03-26 09:37:00 PM  
UnspokenVoice: So we can't teach the kids good science? Ya know, the whole looking for flaws and then returning with a new theory if applicable thing? Not that I care one way or the other but, really, being taught to look at theories scientifically instead of blind belief might actually have some benefits.

As soon as a better alternative is presented, we should be open to it.

Intelligent design is not a scientifically viable (or remotely legitimate) alternative, and the flaws in evolution as we currently know it, while present do not disprove the entire approach. Evolution is our best explanation for the development and diversity of organic life on this planet, and is backed up with far, far more evidence and research than ID.
 
2009-03-26 09:39:42 PM  
Bloody William: As soon as a better alternative is presented, we should be open to it.

It doesn't have to be better. It just has to be a real scientific theory and, preferably, address some of the limitations of competing theories. This would make it interesting enough to discuss.

ID does not qualify ... it doesn't even try to qualify.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 09:40:09 PM  
Talon: CDP, how is that experiment falsifiable? Your "experiment" read more like an observation. What exactly is the test, and how is the test falsifiable? That's what makes a scientific experiment a legitimate experiment.

Evolution - Philosophy, Not Science
Gregory Koukl

Greg shows that Darwin's General Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science.

I'm mystified by the opening sentence of an article in Friday's Union Tribune (October 25, 1996). It says, "In his most comprehensive statement yet on evolution, Pope John Paul II insisted that faith and science can co-exist."

So far, so good. I agree with the Pope wholeheartedly on this first point. If you heard my opening address at our conference on Science and Faith, you'd know why I think they can co-exist if they are properly defined. (How science and faith are defined is an important part of answering the question.)

I part ways with the Pope in his next statement. He said that "Charles Darwin's theories are sound as long as they take into account that creation was the work of God."

That's an odd thing to say, it seems to me. I mean no disrespect here at all to Pope John Paul II. But doesn't that strike you as odd? It seems to me that Charles Darwin's theories--scientific theories, theories about the origins and development of things--are either sound or not sound. If they're not sound, you can't baptize them by bringing God into the picture and miraculously make them sound. And if they are sound in themselves, then you don't need to add God to make them work, do you? It's already doing fine on its own. Which is the point of evolution: mother nature without father God.

I don't think evolution works at all. I don't think Charles Darwin's theories are sound, so I'm not in the least bit tempted to baptize them with some form of theistic evolution.

By definition, evolution offered an explanation for how things got to be the way they are without God (I'm referring to what's known as the "general theory of evolution"). This is why it made such a splash. Do you think that if God could be worked into the evolutionary picture, then evolution would have taken off the way it did? Of course not.

Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and one of the world's preeminent evolutionists, was right when he said that Darwin made the world safe for atheism. But if Darwinism can be easily baptized with theism, how can it be that Darwin made the world safe for atheism? It's precisely because evolution seemed to explain things that used to require the existence of God to explain them that Darwinism became so popular and accepted within ten to fifteen years after Origin of Species was published in 1859. It's precisely because God is out of the picture that evolution is so appealing.

When you listen to evolutionists like Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, he's very willing to admit you can believe in God and also be an evolutionist. No problem. But that doesn't mean Gould approves of theistic evolution. Gould means that plenty of his friends believe in God, but their belief in God is a religious thing they do in their closets, inside their homes and behind the closed doors of the churches. They don't mix religion and science, God and evolution, fantasy with fact.

Gould's attitude is typical of other evolutionary scientists. Believe in God if you want. Practice your religious alchemy in the privacy of your own home if you must. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with the real world. When it comes to the real world, the fact of the matter is that God was not involved in the process. Life evolved through non-directed, materialistic processes. Stephen J. Gould and everyone else who writes on this issue makes that very clear.

When people try to fit God into the process of evolution, that's when evolutionists like Gould stand up and say, "Wait a minute, you don't understand evolution if that's what you think actually took place. Evolution is by chance, not design, and you can't have design by chance."

Theistic evolution means design by chance. That's like square circles, ladies and gentlemen. There is no such thing.

The real question is whether the evidence supports evolution or not, not whether we can baptize evolution with the word "God" so Christians feel comfortable.

To put it simply, lest there be any confusion about the matter, evolution must be dealt with scientifically, on its own merits. Is it an adequate explanation of the origin of things?

I think it's wholly inadequate. Contrary to the Pope's views, the more knowledge we get, the more problems we see with the origin of life by evolutionary means--the more problems we see with the change from one kind of life into another by evolutionary means.

The passage of time and the increase of knowledge haven't helped evolution; they've hurt it. Evolution was popular early on precisely because there was so little information about the process. Now we know much more about the details of biochemistry and genetics, and information theory, and the incredible complexity of even the simplest living thing. It's become evident that evolution is just not capable of explaining life.

You want proof for that? Here, it's very simple. This is my handy-dandy evolution refuter. It's the simplest way I know to right to the heart of the problem, proving that evolution is not based on fact, but on philosophy.

For evolution to be a fact, you must have two things, minimally. First, you've got to have life coming from non-life--abiogenesis. Second, you've got to have a change in that life from simple forms to complex forms over time. You must have the kick-off, and you must have the rest of the game.

Now, here's my question: How did life come from non-life? How did the game get started by evolutionary means. Does anyone know? Guess what? Nobody knows. Oh, there are some ideas and people have suggested some possible ways, but nobody has sketched out any way that really answers the question. There are so many problems and complications. There are competing models that have been suggested, but they're just starting places. They're just ways of saying, "Let's start here, and we'll see where it leads." There are possibilities, but no one knows how it happened, or even how it could have happened in enough detail to be compelling."

Now, here's the kicker. If you don't know how it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes, how do you know that it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes? Evolution is claimed to be a fact, but you can't have the fact of evolution unless you have the fact of abiogenesis. Yet nobody knows how such a thing could ever take place. And if life can't be shown to have come from non-life, then the game can't even get started.

Then why do we call evolution a fact when evolution can't even get off the ground, based on the information we have right now. The answer you get is always the same: Because we're here. It must have happened . That's called circular reasoning, friends, based on a prior commitment to naturalism that won't be shaken by the facts.

Which proves that this is not about science, it's about philosophy.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 09:41:24 PM  
This headline has Bevets written all over it? How is he not in here by now?
 
2009-03-26 09:42:05 PM  
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.


The thing of it is, fundies can't wrap their heads around what a theory is. They act like a theory is an idea or an educated guess.

That's closer to a hypothesis than a theory.

A theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenonm supported and tested through empirical observation and experiments.

And most of science, including gravity, is considered a theory.

As such, most scientific topics are discussed as theories, giving the scope and limitations, and the gaps that still exist within a theory.

Fundies don't understand this.

But the fundies prefer to believe that science is trying to scrub God out of the brains of children, so they are disparately jamming God back in at every chance they get.

In fact, fundies don't give a damn about education, no they just want to brainwash kids with their ridiculous dogma.
 
2009-03-26 09:42:09 PM  
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y191/CygnusDarius/Science21.jpg
 
2009-03-26 09:42:20 PM  
Farking Canuck: Bloody William: As soon as a better alternative is presented, we should be open to it.

It doesn't have to be better. It just has to be a real scientific theory and, preferably, address some of the limitations of competing theories. This would make it interesting enough to discuss.

ID does not qualify ... it doesn't even try to qualify.


True, but just being testable doesn't mean it should be taught in schools. In college courses, as new approaches? Certainly. In advanced high school biology courses? Sure. But not in elementary school or any other basic science or biology classes where the basics of life are discussed. That's like holding up a prism, teaching kids about how white light splits into colors, and then running them through a lesson on the potentials of quantum entanglement.
 
2009-03-26 09:43:16 PM  
Because apparently it's forbidden.
 
2009-03-26 09:43:38 PM  
Space_Fetus: I guess not. *sigh* on the plus side I GIS'd "God did it" and came across this gem on the first page no less. Enjoy!

God made a little girl cry?

What a jerk.
 
2009-03-26 09:43:43 PM  
fark all this religious shiat appearing recently on fark.

enough is enough
STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!
 
2009-03-26 09:43:46 PM  
Bloody William: Intelligent design is not a scientifically viable (or remotely legitimate) alternative, and the flaws in evolution as we currently know it, while present do not disprove the entire approach.

Not to mention, any 'flaws' in our knowledge are of such detail that to include them in even the advanced science courses in highschools would be nearly impossible.
 
2009-03-26 09:44:00 PM  
"The war between science and religion has been over for 500 years. Science won. That's why we no longer live in the dark ages and we're able to communicate with each other over the internet."

Or godtubes, as I prefer to call it.
 
2009-03-26 09:44:26 PM  
www.pissedonpolitics.com
 
2009-03-26 09:44:36 PM  
CDP: CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified).

Do you have ANY idea of how long 14 Billion years are?
Actually the probability of ANYTHING is close to one seen in the light of possibilities in the universe over this timespan.

CSI = Calling Shiat Intelligent!
 
2009-03-26 09:45:20 PM  
Good 'ol fundies. Claim to be so concerned about what their kids are being taught but they really just want to decide what your kids are taught.

The fundies want to control your children's hearts and minds, thankfully someone thought of the children.
 
2009-03-26 09:47:10 PM  
I love how ID proponents like to talk about small, extremely specific 'controversies' in evolutionary biology. However, if they ever attended a real university and taken more than an introductory science class (any one will do, physics is an awesome example of this), you are routinely reminded that everything the previous class taught you was wrong, for the most part, because of all the different details. What you were taught in the beginning is sound, for the most part, but when doing real analysis you need to know even more.

Maybe we should stop teaching physics and chemistry too?
 
2009-03-26 09:47:55 PM  
All of our actions and deeds are watched by Him. He was watching today and those responsible for rejecting his presence and love will be called to reckoning one day. There will be no relief as the fires in the pits of Hades can not be alleviated by some man and his turtle from the Galapagos.

/don't mind me, just doing a little fishing
//did i do it right or too over the top
 
2009-03-26 09:48:49 PM  
Pharque-it: CDP: CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified).

Do you have ANY idea of how long 14 Billion years are?
Actually the probability of ANYTHING is close to one seen in the light of possibilities in the universe over this timespan.

CSI = Calling Shiat Intelligent!


I was going to agree but then you lost it completely.
 
2009-03-26 09:49:43 PM  
Suck it, repugnitards!
 
2009-03-26 09:50:06 PM  
But there still is the super devil
a792.ac-images.myspacecdn.com

/At least six inches taller than the normal devil.
//Rides a flying motorcycle.
///Carries a jar of marmalade that forced people to commit adultery.
 
2009-03-26 09:51:48 PM  
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2009-03-26 09:51:59 PM  
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?
 
2009-03-26 09:56:48 PM  
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?


Apparently, yes. Which goes to a lack of basic math and logic skills. Which says a lot about what and how we teach in this country.
 
2009-03-26 09:56:48 PM  
SquirrelWithLargeNuts: What happened to the little quotes button?

img3.fark.net

you're welcome
 
2009-03-26 09:57:05 PM  
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?

Yes. They believe that their god designed and assembled the malaria bug that kills millions of children every year.

They may not understand that they believe this, but they do.
 
2009-03-26 09:58:12 PM  
Great headline. I laughed.
 
2009-03-26 09:58:19 PM  
Ever notice how when you are really stoned the TV with the sound off really seems to sync with the music on the stereo...well it's kinda like that. Or so I have heard. Random seems kinda like intelligent when you're baked. Oh and infinity is big...really big.

/oz
//floyd
///stuff
 
2009-03-26 09:59:09 PM  
Peter von Nostrand: All of our actions and deeds are watched by Him. He was watching today and those responsible for rejecting his presence and love will be called to reckoning one day. There will be no relief as the fires in the pits of Hades can not be alleviated by some man and his turtle from the Galapagos.

/don't mind me, just doing a little fishing
//did i do it right or too over the top


you lose points for admitting it. you have to sound both believable and certain of your statements.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 10:00:32 PM  
Malaclypse the Younger: CDP:
Wow, when did Richard Dawkins become a zoologist? That's a spectacular job of taking a quote out of context as well. Not only is your argument baseless, it's wrong.


Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Two NASA land rovers, named Spirit and Opportunity, explored Mars during 2004. The topography showed obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life, or any signs of past life, on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface with an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory. Yet, there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Well, Mars was once sterile, but it is not sterile now. The rovers and other probes sent to Mars have contaminated the plant with bacteria, viruses and other possible organisms. This contamination has destroyed the possibility of proving that these life forms evolved on Mars.

The chance of finding evidence of past life forms on Mars seems very remote, but even if life were found, it does not prove that life evolved any more than life on Earth proves evolution. It simply does not. Evolutionists have struck out again.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:00:46 PM  
0Icky0: Yes. They believe that their god designed and assembled the malaria bug that kills millions of children every year.

It is a test of faith! Like the Dinosaur bones! And sex!
 
2009-03-26 10:05:03 PM  
I'm an evolution-believing creationist, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...
 
2009-03-26 10:06:08 PM  
SquirrelWithLargeNuts: What happened to the little quotes button?

Here, try mine: img3.fark.net
 
2009-03-26 10:06:56 PM  
CDP: Well, Mars was once sterile, but it is not sterile now.

"Real" link please. Not an "infected" one.

The bible generates some heat when burned. Magic?
 
2009-03-26 10:07:01 PM  
Anything that defeats the Christers's plans to take over the country is fine by me.
 
2009-03-26 10:07:10 PM  
CDP: Link (new window)

lol, from that site: "Evolution is a Religion - the Worship of a Make Believe Time-god."


Make believe time god? Like, Grandfather Time or something? Maybe Tiamat from Dungeons and Dragons...
 
2009-03-26 10:09:04 PM  
Somebody with skillz needs to shop a "creationist tears" bottle, preferably over a can or bottle of Lone Star.

/I still can't believe the chairman of our state board of education believes the earth is under 10,000 years old. If the universe were intelligently designed, such a thing would never happen.
 
2009-03-26 10:09:26 PM  
CDP: Link (new window)

I clicked on the link and stopped reading here:

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.


He's absolutely correct, but inadvertantly.

The theory of evolution is not a scientific law.

Thats why it is not called the Law of Evolution.
 
2009-03-26 10:09:52 PM  
maddogdelta: psssst....look at the pictures...

Don't spoil the fun ;)
 
2009-03-26 10:11:30 PM  
What kind of moron would send their kid to a public school anymore?

I don't care about creation vs evolution, whatever. I have just recently noted that public school education truly sucks today.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 10:11:44 PM  
Pharque-it: CDP: CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified).

Do you have ANY idea of how long 14 Billion years are?
Actually the probability of ANYTHING is close to one seen in the light of possibilities in the universe over this timespan.

CSI = Calling Shiat Intelligent!


Human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, Earth's population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago, comparing very well with the number of people on Noah's Ark. Based on evolution's claim for the origin of man, the same ½ percent growth calculation for the human race results in a huge present day population that can not be justified by the fossil record or current statistics.[34]

• Rivers pour tons of material every year into the Earth's oceans. Scientists know with a fair degree of accuracy the quantity of each element's influx as well as the current concentration of these elements in the oceans. By simple division, they can calculate the time it took to reach present levels, even accounting for sedimentation and dissipation. None of these elements give an age of the Earth even coming close to billion of years.[34]

• Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several "strata" of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them.[34] At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.[10]

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:12:00 PM  
heinekenftw: I clicked on the link and stopped reading here:

Oh don't stop, there, that website is full on wharrgarble hilarity.

NASA Discovers a Rabbit Hole on Mars - Oh, Isn't it Wonderful.

Mars Lander May 25, 2008.The Jet Propulsion Laboratory division of NASA believes they have finally proven that evolution is true. An unsubstantiated comment made by one of the mission leaders about the first photos received back from the May 25, 2008 mission, "Oh, isn't it wonderful. We landed right in front of a rabbit hole. Oh, this is the most exciting time in history. Charles Darwin was not a nut case. Evolution is true. God bless our mission. Oops, I didn't mean to say God bless." Click the image to see an enlargement.

No! It is not a rabbit hole, stupid, and evolution is false.
 
2009-03-26 10:13:17 PM  
CDP: Well, Mars was once sterile, but it is not sterile now. The rovers and other probes sent to Mars have contaminated the plant with bacteria, viruses and other possible organisms. This contamination has destroyed the possibility of proving that these life forms evolved on Mars.

The chance of finding evidence of past life forms on Mars seems very remote, but even if life were found, it does not prove that life evolved any more than life on Earth proves evolution. It simply does not. Evolutionists have struck out again.


So no matter what we find on Mars, or any other planet, evolutionary theory is wrong because...you say so? I would just like to point out the methane plumes that have been found with no sign of chemical origin, and the fact that the rovers and all probes are cleanroom bacteria and virus free, and...aw, who am I kidding? You lack the capacity to understand the most basic of scientific ideas, dismissing them out of hand, or you are a troll, either way, get up, take off all your clothes, and go lie down in field. Every single other thing in your life is based on science, and the true faith based approach involves some lilies and a field, if I'm not mistaken. So go, and be true.
 
2009-03-26 10:14:01 PM  
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!!

With that said, it wasnt destroyed, it was deadlocked. Which means my state is only HALF farking fundementaly christian insane. Which still scares the fark out of me.

/Eventually the scales will slip and it will be time to run away to another state.
//But not today.
 
2009-03-26 10:14:30 PM  
Jesus never rode dinosaurs. Bulls, on the other hand...

i384.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:15:10 PM  
And more so, the author of the link CDP posted obviously has limited understanding of statistics and human biology.

Humans in the tropics would have reflective skin instead of black? Does he understand what melanin does? It protects us from UV. Thats why people in Africa and the tropics are black! Thats why middle easterners and Indians are brown!

Never in an eternity will the proper order of DNA form? Um, given infinite time, no matter the odds, it will eventually happen. And even if it would take countless eons to perform every attempt, it could always succeed on the first or second try.

Especially when you have billions of cells replicating several times a day.
 
2009-03-26 10:15:25 PM  
wippit: I'm an evolution-believing creationist, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

What's it like having your brain on the verge of exploding because you hold both the view that the world is both 4.3 billion years old and the view that it is 6-10 thousand years old simultaneously?

/to simplify, you are claiming to be two mutually exclusive things.
//you can't both be a "creationist" and someone who acknowledges the ToE as being the best supported explanation for the facts at hand
 
2009-03-26 10:16:00 PM  
bmihura: I have just recently noted that public school education truly sucks today.

That's a pretty broad paintbrush you have there.
 
2009-03-26 10:16:05 PM  
Shouldn't good teachers cover the strengths and weaknesses of all theories?
 
2009-03-26 10:17:15 PM  
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) Biochemic ...


ARE YOU FARKING KIDDING ME???

/You can't be serious.
 
2009-03-26 10:17:53 PM  
bmihura: I have just recently noted that public school education truly sucks today.

Blame idiot school boards for this. Of course the US could fix their issues with public education with a few simple reforms, but national standards tends to send up the hackles of the State's Rights fetishists.
 
2009-03-26 10:18:04 PM  
stuhayes2010: Shouldn't good teachers cover the strengths and weaknesses of all theories?

What's the strength of ID again? That it makes Creationists look like bigger morans?
 
2009-03-26 10:18:27 PM  
CDP: Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong.

What you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
2009-03-26 10:18:33 PM  
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.





I want to know who wrote that pile of copypasta fail. It sure doesn't look like it meets the requirements for being intelligently designed.

Seriously, get a clue. Just because there are scientific looking big words on the page, doesn't mean that it is science.
 
2009-03-26 10:19:02 PM  
Murkanen: wippit: I'm an evolution-believing creationist, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

What's it like having your brain on the verge of exploding because you hold both the view that the world is both 4.3 billion years old and the view that it is 6-10 thousand years old simultaneously?

/to simplify, you are claiming to be two mutually exclusive things.
//you can't both be a "creationist" and someone who acknowledges the ToE as being the best supported explanation for the facts at hand


Where does "creationist" mean "biblical creation" anyways? besides, nowhere in the Bible does it give the planet's age, so what's this 10 thousand year bullshiat?
 
2009-03-26 10:19:14 PM  
orclover: Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!!

With that said, it wasnt destroyed, it was deadlocked. Which means my state is only HALF farking fundementaly christian insane. Which still scares the fark out of me.

/Eventually the scales will slip and it will be time to run away to another state.
//But not today.


I always thought it would be better to just go back to having 49 states again.

This makes me move a little bit toward not despising Texas.
 
2009-03-26 10:19:15 PM  
SoxSweepAgain: ARE YOU FARKING KIDDING ME???

/You can't be serious.


You read all of that and still missed the cartoon he used to sum it all up?
 
2009-03-26 10:20:37 PM  
stuhayes2010: Shouldn't good teachers cover the strengths and weaknesses of all theories?

Putting aside that its retarded to ask that of any theory.

Is there a single scientific theory other than evolution that you are capable of listing the strengths and weaknesses?

I'll take one. Demonstrate to us how science should be taught.
 
2009-03-26 10:21:34 PM  
SoxSweepAgain: ARE YOU FARKING KIDDING ME???

Yes.

SoxSweepAgain: /You can't be serious.
//he isn't
 
2009-03-26 10:21:40 PM  
Murkanen: wippit: I'm an evolution-believing creationist, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

What's it like having your brain on the verge of exploding because you hold both the view that the world is both 4.3 billion years old and the view that it is 6-10 thousand years old simultaneously?

/to simplify, you are claiming to be two mutually exclusive things.
//you can't both be a "creationist" and someone who acknowledges the ToE as being the best supported explanation for the facts at hand


Fairly certain he simply means he believes god created via evolution. Which has its own theological problems regarding free-will/destiny, as well as scientific problems regarding stochastic mutation and probability.

But w/e, its a smaller set of a problems. Take what you can get.
 
2009-03-26 10:22:53 PM  
ninjakirby: Make believe time god? Like, Grandfather Time or something? Maybe Tiamat from Dungeons and Dragons...

Tiamat? Are you sure you don't mean Chronepsis?

/yes, I knew that without looking it up
 
2009-03-26 10:23:41 PM  
heinekenftw: Um, given infinite time, no matter the odds, it will eventually happen.

1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.
2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.
3. A god will exist after a certain period of time.
4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.
5. A god exists currently.

YOU LOSE!
 
2009-03-26 10:23:56 PM  
CDP: Link

Anyone that says he accepts the Theory of Evolution, and also claims he believes in God, is a liar. He does not believe in the God of the Bible who created all things and all life in an instant.

The Religion of Love and Compassion. What BS!!!

Define INSTANT.

Atheist version:
Anyone that says he accepts God, and also claims he believes in the Theory of Evolution, is an OK person. He does not agree with the Bible Theory, that all things and all life were created in an instant.
 
2009-03-26 10:25:17 PM  
Murkanen: wippit: I'm an evolution-believing creationist, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

What's it like having your brain on the verge of exploding because you hold both the view that the world is both 4.3 billion years old and the view that it is 6-10 thousand years old simultaneously?

/to simplify, you are claiming to be two mutually exclusive things.
//you can't both be a "creationist" and someone who acknowledges the ToE as being the best supported explanation for the facts at hand


It's called old earth creationism and theistic evolution and the Catholic leadership supports it.

The idea is that God created the world with scientific principles such as Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution (the Big Three as I like to call them). He caused the initial expansion of the big bang and guided the process until we arrive at today. Genesis on the other hand is metaphorical.

/not my personal belief mind you, but a fair compromise for Christianity and Science.
 
2009-03-26 10:25:32 PM  
wippit: Where does "creationist" mean "biblical creation" anyways?

Everywhere because that is exactly what is meant by the term creationist. It's possible that you may be using some unheard of use for the term before, but it would be akin to saying you were going to serve "Motor boat with steamed motor oil" for dinner and getting upset because you spent the past few hours making pot roast with mashed taters. The more likely scenario is that you are using the term creationist when you really mean that you are a follower of theistic evolution, which is not creationism.

besides, nowhere in the Bible does it give the planet's age, so what's this 10 thousand year bullshiat?

Crazy monk did a math experiment, put the earth's age at 6,672 years old and creationists have been angling anything between that and 10k years as the age of the earth.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 10:26:21 PM  
heinekenftw: CDP: Link (new window)

I clicked on the link and stopped reading here:

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

He's absolutely correct, but inadvertantly.

The theory of evolution is not a scientific law.

Thats why it is not called the Law of Evolution.


The Theft of True Science

The thief is not coming except that he should be stealing and sacrificing and destroying.
John 10:10

Here is my definition of science:

Science is the systematic, unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos, the formulation of the truths found thereby into general laws, and their application for humanitarian, political, and economic purposes.

The "unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos" is, in effect, the search for truth. Our attitude towards science should ever be one of inquiry. A scientist's task is to ascertain what a thing does mean. He or she must not presume to dictate what it must mean. Such a predisposition demonstrates bias. A scientific teaching must rest on positive, unquestioned statement of fact, not on gratuitous assumptions or specious arguments.

In accord with my definition of science, we try to the best of our ability to let nature and the cosmos speak for themselves. In regard to what is happening on this earth, we try to let the structure and events of nature lead us where they will.

Neither belief in creationism nor evolution is necessary to the actual examination of nature itself. Creationists look at the Grand Canyon and see the result of the upheavals caused by Noah's Flood. The evo-atheists look at the Grand Canyon and see millions of years of erosion. The evidence for both interpretations is exactly the same. On page 26 of their book, the NAS authors write, "The bones in the forelimbs of terrestrial and some aquatic vertebrates are remarkably similar because they have all evolved from the forelimbs of a common ancestor." A creationist, examining the same evidence would say that the similarity is a result of the fact that all these vertebrates were made by the same Creator. To the ones examining the vertebrates, what difference does it make? None.

Evidence is not the problem: it is the interpretation that causes the controversy. Creationism and evolution both interpret the structure and events of nature, representing opposite hypotheses with different assumptions. The creation hypothesis, or the God hypothesis, looks at the apparent design in nature, and says that this points to a Creator. The evolutionary hypothesis also sees the apparent design in nature, but says that this is illusory, and that all life can be explained chemically and materialistically (methodological materialism) without reference to a Creator.

An honest scientist cannot exclude either explanation of nature without presenting evidence for that exclusion. Is it possible that there is a Creator God? Is it possible that there is not a Creator God? The answer to both questions is "Yes." When we muster as much "objectivity" as we humans are able, we have to answer both of these questions in the affirmative. Unbiased science accepts the reality of both of these possible explanations for existence. Arbitrarily excluding one of these explanations in our search for truth is fundamentally unscientific; that is, it is the abandonment of the "open-ended search for-truth" frame of mind in favor of something else.

A scientist ought to behave like a detective in that they both have to search for clues and further information leading to a conclusion. Just about half the shows on evening television concern police investigations. From Miss Marple to Joe Friday to Horatio Kane, we're all familiar with the logic of the investigative process. In a murder investigation, would detective Eddie Green of Law and Order exclude a possible suspect without grounds for that exclusion? Of course not. If he did, the whole police investigative process would not make sense to us, and it would suggest some degree of prejudice on his part. That's why fictional detectives and real detectives always insist upon evidence (e.g., an alibi which proves non-involvement) before they exclude a person as a suspect.

A bad situation only gets worse if, in addition to arbitrarily excluding one suspect, detectives railroad someone else out of a predisposed desire to see them punished, regardless of the evidence.

In the same way, the investigative procedures of true science do not make sense if they arbitrarily exclude one possible explanation for phenomena in favor of another. There is a genuine possibility that there is a Creator God, and that therefore, nature is designed. Absent any proof otherwise, the God hypothesis remains a valid scientific hypothesis.

ARBITRARILY EXCLUDING THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

We saw in Chapter 1 that, in 1964, Julian Huxley urged his fellow evo-atheists to construct something to replace the intellectually and morally burdensome (to them) God hypothesis.

Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the book published by the atheistic hierarchy at the NAS, has given us a summary of that "something" which, in response to Huxley's order, they have fabricated-not only to take the place of the God hypothesis, but to obliterate its mention from America's public school science classrooms. The NAS's arbitrary exclusion of the God hypothesis leaves only one possible explanation for our existence-their atheistic evolutionary one. There is now only one brand of science available, a brand they insist that everyone-from kindergarten children to laboratory researchers-must be satisfied with.

Their arbitrary exclusion of the valid God hypothesis is based entirely on their atheistic prejudices, the world-view they favor, and not upon sound scientific principles. All investigations of nature ought to be unbranded, or generic, in the sense of being nonspecific insofar as the God hypothesis and the evolution hypothesis are concerned. Ideally, let unbiased researchers present their findings from their systematic examinations of nature, and let the creationists and atheists interpret the findings in terms of their respective assumptions, or hypotheses. The interpretation of the findings (the evidence) that makes the most sense is the one more qualified to a "theory" status.

The atheists at the NAS cannot allow the open competition of the two hypotheses, because based on what we actually see in nature, the God hypothesis always makes more sense. To get around that severe problem, the NAS must, by atheistic fiat, brand all science as exclusively evolutionary. Science becomes "evolutionary science." Biology becomes "evolutionary biology." Anthropology becomes "evolutionary anthropology." Their goal is to force-feed you and your children their atheistic brand, and their atheistic brand only. Are your kids hungry for information on the origins and purpose of humanity? Do they wonder how they got here? Fix them another bowl of evo-atheism. That's all that's left on the shelf.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:26:21 PM  
Murkanen: /to simplify, you are claiming to be two mutually exclusive things

1. God directed evolution.
2. Evolution produced a variety of organisms.
3. That which can be traced back to an ultimate cause can said to be created by that cause.
4. God created a variety of organisms.

Evolution and creationism. YOU LOSE!
 
2009-03-26 10:27:25 PM  
zeph`: heinekenftw: Um, given infinite time, no matter the odds, it will eventually happen.

1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.
2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.
3. A god will exist after a certain period of time.
4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.
5. A god exists currently.

YOU LOSE!


i130.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:27:51 PM  
heinekenftw: CDP: Link (new window)

I clicked on the link and stopped reading here:

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

He's absolutely correct, but inadvertantly.

The theory of evolution is not a scientific law.

Thats why it is not called the Law of Evolution.


This is where all the repugnitards shoot themselves in the foot.

Yes, Evolution is a theory. Do they KNOW what that means? Of course not.

A "theory" is not the same thing as a "hypothesis", which is what most repugnitards treat it as. The only reason Evolution has not been promoted to scientific Law is that the process cannot be recreated under laboratory conditions, because the process takes millions of years.

Now, the ENGINE of evolution (Natural Selection) can and is easily proved under lab conditions all the time. If you have a population of marmots and eliminate all the speckled ones before they reproduce, in a very short time you will have no speckled marmots in your population.

Now, if you took a mutated marmot that had, say, been born with no hair, and gave it a natural mating advantage (i.e. eliminated all other male marmots), in a very few generations you would have a population of entirely bald marmots.

That's all evolution is, folks.

When a random mutation happens to produce a mating/survival advantage, specimens with that mutation have a greater share of the gene pool because the others cannot compete as well in that environment.

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.
 
2009-03-26 10:27:54 PM  
zeph`: 1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.

FAIL.

You have zero evidence that its possible at all.

Life on the other hand...
 
2009-03-26 10:28:47 PM  
stuhayes2010: Shouldn't good teachers cover the strengths and weaknesses of all theories?

If this were really about teaching Texas schoolchildren the strengths and weaknesses of various scientific theories through the practice of the scientific method, I would answer yes. But the "strengths and weaknesses" language is simply an attempt on the part of religious fundamentalists to sneak intelligent design and evangelism into Texas classrooms. If the state can muddy the definition of the scientific method, then fundie teachers can't get in trouble for introducing non-scientific concepts into their classes.
 
2009-03-26 10:29:10 PM  
Let's not spend this thread arguing with idiots about the fact of evolution.

Let's spend it mocking them for being stupider than people in Texas.
 
2009-03-26 10:29:10 PM  
zeph`: 4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.

This was a great pull out of your ass!

TOTAL FAIL!
 
2009-03-26 10:29:20 PM  
zeph`: 1. God directed evolution.

Why is God always directing evolution? Far more reasonable to argue that god created the rule-set in which evolution was possible and merely allowed the algorithmic function to run its course.
 
2009-03-26 10:29:24 PM  
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.
 
2009-03-26 10:29:29 PM  
Pharque-it: Anyone that says he accepts the Theory of Evolution, and also claims he believes in God, is a liar. He does not believe in the God of the Bible who created all things and all life in an instant.

The Religion of Love and Compassion. What BS!!!

Define INSTANT.

Atheist version:
Anyone that says he accepts God, and also claims he believes in the Theory of Evolution, is an OK person. He does not agree with the Bible Theory, that all things and all life were created in an instant.


Instead of responding, simply look at the cartoons he posts at the end of his cut and paste rants.

Then hit yourself in the head for not getting what's going on.
 
2009-03-26 10:29:52 PM  
bartink: You have zero evidence that its possible at all.

Zero evidence? More like.. infinite evidence. All of creation's worth of evidence.
 
2009-03-26 10:31:17 PM  
Pharque-it: This was a great pull out of your ass!

Defining a god along classical lines, he would presumably have the power to exist at any time or all times. If a god ever comes to exist there is no reason that he wouldn't instantly exist at all points in time.
 
2009-03-26 10:31:27 PM  
CDP

Best Troll Evar!! Or....
 
2009-03-26 10:31:45 PM  
zeph`: Zero evidence? More like.. infinite evidence. All of creation's worth of evidence.

Circular argument. There is evidence of a something that created this because its here. Its really only evidence of a universe. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2009-03-26 10:32:16 PM  
ninjakirby: CDP: Link (new window)

lol, from that site: "Evolution is a Religion - the Worship of a Make Believe Time-god."


Make believe time god? Like, Grandfather Time or something? Maybe Tiamat from Dungeons and Dragons...


Tiamat's a real goddess, dumbass.

She was the mother of all the gods, and ate most of them because they kept waking her up with their incessant noise.
 
2009-03-26 10:32:46 PM  
Pharque-it: CDP: Link

Anyone that says he accepts the Theory of Evolution, and also claims he believes in God, is a liar. He does not believe in the God of the Bible who created all things and all life in an instant.


Last time I read the Bible, it was 6 days, not instantaneously. And that only really account for Earth, or at the most our solar system, It doesn't get into stuff beyond that.

heinekenftw: The idea is that God created the world with scientific principles such as Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution (the Big Three as I like to call them). He caused the initial expansion of the big bang and guided the process until we arrive at today. Genesis on the other hand is metaphorical.

Actually, the Genesis account could in fact be literal... I believe it's fairly accurate from a point of view on Eath. But most people don't read it the same way I do.

Murkanen: Crazy monk did a math experiment, put the earth's age at 6,672 years old and creationists have been angling anything between that and 10k years as the age of the earth.

So... crazy monk is God now? Hard to keep up with the metaphors.
 
2009-03-26 10:33:06 PM  
ninjakirby: Far more reasonable to argue

Wait, is that what we're concerned about now?
 
2009-03-26 10:33:07 PM  
zeph`: Defining a god along classical lines, he would presumably have the power to exist at any time or all times. If a god ever comes to exist there is no reason that he wouldn't instantly exist at all points in time.

Sure, that's one possibility.
 
2009-03-26 10:33:20 PM  
cthellis: SoxSweepAgain: ARE YOU FARKING KIDDING ME???

Yes.

SoxSweepAgain: /You can't be serious.
//he isn't


OK, cool.
 
2009-03-26 10:34:32 PM  
Looks like the people who believe in magic are trying to make Genesis = evolution

/AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
//religion's days are numbered

*reads writing on the wall *
 
2009-03-26 10:34:53 PM  
CDP = Bevets (abbreviated)

Bevets devolved into CDP.
 
2009-03-26 10:34:57 PM  
zeph`: 1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.

Actually, the odds a single "god" are infinitely small. The odds of at least two, a male and female are much larger, and a entire population is even larger. It explains religious pluralism, and is consistent with the fact that no kind of creature ever seen on Earth consists of a single member. In biology if your species has only one member you're pretty much extinct.
 
2009-03-26 10:35:22 PM  
zeph`: Pharque-it: This was a great pull out of your ass!

Defining a god along classical lines, he would presumably have the power to exist at any time or all times. If a god ever comes to exist there is no reason that he wouldn't instantly exist at all points in time.


He might also have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis
 
2009-03-26 10:35:26 PM  
ninjakirby: HAH YOU DOGMATIC FOOL YOU HAVE FINALLY REVEALED TO US THE RELIGION THAT IS DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. ONLY A PRIEST OF HIGH KNOWLEDGE ARCANA COULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THIS TRUTH SO QUICKLY.

[Satanic D&D Ritual Panel]

Easily my favorite Chick tract!

img.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:35:57 PM  
bartink: Circular argument.

More like scientific evidence - it's based on observation after all.

bartink: Its really only evidence of a universe.

1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.
4. That first cause is a god.
5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.
 
2009-03-26 10:36:36 PM  
eqtworld: Looks like the people who believe in magic are trying to make Genesis = evolution

/AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
//religion's days are numbered

*reads writing on the wall *


Genesis = creation

Evolution = adaptation

Stop me if I'm going to fast here....
 
2009-03-26 10:38:13 PM  
Somacandra: The odds of at least two

Conjunction fallacy? (new window)
 
2009-03-26 10:38:39 PM  
zeph`: 1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.
4. That first cause is a god.
5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.


Your supposed "logic" statements continuously fling logic down and dance on it.
 
2009-03-26 10:39:11 PM  
Ludovicus: Tiamat's a real goddess, dumbass.

She was the mother of all the gods, and ate most of them because they kept waking her up with their incessant noise.


Yes, Tiamat is a Babylonian goddess. That's why I included "from Dungeons and Dragons". If there were only one, I wouldn't have needed the qualifier.

wippit: Actually, the Genesis account could in fact be literal... I believe it's fairly accurate from a point of view on Eath. But most people don't read it the same way I do.

So having light before you create the sources of light (stars) is 'fairly accurate'? Do you read it backwards or something?

wippit: So... crazy monk is God now? Hard to keep up with the metaphors.

He's referring to James Ussher who 'calculated' the date of Creation as Sunday October 23, 4004 BC.

We've done a bit better since then.
 
2009-03-26 10:39:24 PM  
wippit: eqtworld: Looks like the people who believe in magic are trying to make Genesis = evolution

/AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
//religion's days are numbered

*reads writing on the wall *

Genesis = creation

Evolution = adaptation

Stop me if I'm going to fast here....


you lost me

tell me where the omnipotent being starts talking to people, worrying about pork, and f*cking virgins
 
2009-03-26 10:39:34 PM  
zeph`: 1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.
4. That first cause is a god.
5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.


Then what caused God to exist?
 
2009-03-26 10:39:41 PM  
Tie vote. Ugh. Way too close for comfort.

Never ceases to amaze me how the god-of-the-gaps argument still holds so much sway - i.e. "I don't understand how something this complex could evolve, therefore god did it."

/Come on, get with the times
//The bigger science gets, the smaller god gets.
 
2009-03-26 10:39:56 PM  
So if an intelligent designer made the whole universe, why did he bother making anything other than the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon? Couldn't we do quite nicely without all the rest of that stuff which makes up far and away the vast majority of the observable universe? It's not like we have any real hope of reaching any other inhabitable planets as the distances are just too great. Wouldn't God's chosen beings be better off without comets and asteroids which have the potential to wipe out all life on Earth?
 
2009-03-26 10:40:18 PM  
Damn but you're entertaining, CDP.

Just stay out of public office and your local schoolboard, kplsthx.
 
2009-03-26 10:40:25 PM  
Yes, let's teach the weaknesses in EVERYTHING scientific!

Every time a high school physics teacher says that the force of gravity is G * m1m2 / d2, he has to explain that that's only a THEORY, and in fact doesn't explain everything because we can't find the dark matter required to balance the books, and therefore what probably happened is that God created all the planets and stuck them to the celestial sphere and that's what makes them orbit.

It's the same thing.

Part 1: Teach current accepted theory at difficulty appropriate for that level of education.
Part 2: Explain a real weakness in the theory that scientists are currently working on explaining, but which is not proven either way.
Part 3: Imply that because there's one mild weakness in the original theory, it's completely false and in fact God did it.

Watch that last step, she's a doozy.
 
2009-03-26 10:40:49 PM  
eqtworld: He might also have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis

1. The odds of a god developing a large, uncircumcised, blue penis is vanishingly small but positive.
2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.
3. A god will have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis after a certain period of time.
4. If a god develops a large, uncircumcised, blue penis comes to exist at any time he will have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis in all times.
5. A god with a large, uncircumcised, blue penis exists currently.
 
2009-03-26 10:40:57 PM  
wippit: Genesis = creation

img.photobucket.com

I don't see why Genesis is relevant here.
 
2009-03-26 10:40:58 PM  
zeph`: 1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.


Prove it.
 
2009-03-26 10:40:59 PM  
zeph`:
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.


Oh Tommy Aquinni, you know that 2 and 3 contradict each other. If no things are uncaused then the "first" cause must also have a cause of it! Not to mention the fact that #1 doesn't even make literal sense.
 
2009-03-26 10:41:58 PM  
zeph`: 2. No things are uncaused.

Except your god, of course.
Funny how that works.
 
2009-03-26 10:42:42 PM  
Ludovicus: Suck it, repugnitards!

Hey. The majority of the members of the board who voted were Republicans! Seven voted for Jesus Dinosaur Science, but the other three Republicans and four Democrats voted for Actual Science.

So we can't make this a party-split thing. Not all Republicans are for Jesus Dinosaur Science. Just... what seems like the most vocal Republicans, unfortunately.

This is not a Democrats vs. Republicans debate, it is a straight-up debate between:
- teaching our knowledge of the world as it was understood in the Bronze Age
- teaching our knowledge of the world now, with the benefit of centuries of accumulated and widely disseminated scientific knowledge (give Gutenberg a hand, everyone!), greater valuation of rational observation and analysis over religious interpretation for unexplained phenomena, and increasingly advanced techniques of observation and experimentation.

So... let's say instead, Suck it, Bronze Age morons!

And demand that they hand in any technological and scientific innovations that have occurred since Genesis was written. Because they are the worst kind of hypocrites if they deny science in the morning and use their cellphones to text-message in their vote for American Idol in the evening, as if the Bronze Age sheep-herders whose opinions they're relying on for science had f*cking electricity or other modern developments - like all of medicine, cars, guns, running water, or computer machines that show porn on demand (studies show the states who support this kind of creationism-in-science-classrooms consume more porn than anyone else.) Biatches please.
 
2009-03-26 10:43:07 PM  
Somacandra: It explains religious pluralism, and is consistent with the fact that no kind of creature ever seen on Earth consists of a single member.

There are some species which propagate themselves via cloning, to a degree. (SCIENCE!)
 
2009-03-26 10:43:32 PM  
heinekenftw: Then what caused God to exist?

1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. God is not uncaused.
2. A god has the power to bring himself into existence.
3. God caused God to exist.
 
2009-03-26 10:43:35 PM  
zeph`: 2. No things are uncaused.

Dammit!
 
2009-03-26 10:43:49 PM  
heinekenftw: Then what caused God to exist?

God's God

/I know what you are going to ask next, answer: God's God's God
//in response to your next question: ITS GODS ALL THE WAY DOWN!!!!

zeph`: eqtworld: He might also have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis

1. The odds of a god developing a large, uncircumcised, blue penis is vanishingly small but positive.
2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.
3. A god will have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis after a certain period of time.
4. If a god develops a large, uncircumcised, blue penis comes to exist at any time he will have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis in all times.
5. A god with a large, uncircumcised, blue penis exists currently.


I KNEW IT

It's July 27 1984....
 
2009-03-26 10:44:04 PM  
zeph`: Evolution and creationism. YOU LOSE!

Uh, no. If I build a computer and that computer is used to program the next Mars lander, I can't be said to have been the source of the Mars lander programming. Similarly, even if some flavour of deity poofed evolution as the mechanism to further the development of life, that deity can't be claimed to have created anything. All of the creation was the result of evolution without the aid of the deity beyond the "Here, you do this" at the beginning.
 
2009-03-26 10:44:28 PM  
ninjakirby: wippit: Actually, the Genesis account could in fact be literal... I believe it's fairly accurate from a point of view on Eath. But most people don't read it the same way I do.

So having light before you create the sources of light (stars) is 'fairly accurate'? Do you read it backwards or something?


Again, the Bible would be written from the point of view of Earth.

Look at it this way... if you're on the surface of Venus, you have light and dark every day... but you don't ever see the lights doing it because of the atmosphere. If the earth had a similar atmosphere when it first coalesced, you'd have the same thing.
 
2009-03-26 10:44:41 PM  
Renart: I don't see why Genesis is relevant here.

They totally went downhill after Phil Collins took over. Well, after Abacab, anyway. Duke didn't suck either...
 
2009-03-26 10:44:45 PM  
shipofthesun: Your supposed "logic" statements continuously fling logic down and dance on it.

My logic is perfect, your bias causes you to reject my premises. That you do not view my arguments as sound is not my problem.
 
2009-03-26 10:44:46 PM  
zeph`: 3. God caused God to exist.

Ok, but what didn't cause God to unexist then?
 
2009-03-26 10:45:01 PM  
zeph`: Somacandra: The odds of at least two

Conjunction fallacy? (new window)


No. You and WIki misunderstand the Conjunction Fallacy. You are assuming two of something is more "specific" than one. Circular reasoning on your part.
 
2009-03-26 10:45:40 PM  
This whole thing reminds me of the Theist Luddite Ending of BattleStar:God.
 
2009-03-26 10:46:14 PM  
Um why does CDP post these long semi nonsensical arguments against evolution and then include a sardonic photoshop at the end of each one?

\that's a lot of effort for trolling
 
2009-03-26 10:46:23 PM  
the_cnidarian: Ok, but what didn't cause God to unexist then?

Douglas Adams FTW
 
2009-03-26 10:47:03 PM  
Murkanen: Uh, no. If I build a computer and that computer is used to program the next Mars lander, I can't be said to have been the source of the Mars lander programming. Similarly, even if some flavour of deity poofed evolution as the mechanism to further the development of life, that deity can't be claimed to have created anything. All of the creation was the result of evolution without the aid of the deity beyond the "Here, you do this" at the beginning.

What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt?
 
2009-03-26 10:47:14 PM  
0Icky0: Except your god, of course.

See my argument on that point.

Murkanen: Uh, no. If I build a computer and that computer is used to program the next Mars lander, I can't be said to have been the source of the Mars lander programming. Similarly, even if some flavour of deity poofed evolution as the mechanism to further the development of life, that deity can't be claimed to have created anything. All of the creation was the result of evolution without the aid of the deity beyond the "Here, you do this" at the beginning.

God, being of unlimited epistemological position, will know the outcomes of his actions. You, being of limited epistemological position, will not. We can rightly say God created where you didn't because his knowledge of what would be created by his action represent a willing of those things over the alternatives - an act of creation. The same cannot be said about your computer.
 
2009-03-26 10:47:33 PM  
zeph`: My logic is perfect, your bias causes you to reject my premises. That you do not view my arguments as sound is not my problem.

Ahhh the troll is revealed. 9/10. A little too dogmatic.
 
2009-03-26 10:48:39 PM  
the_cnidarian: Ok, but what didn't cause God to unexist then?

Everything that isn't God, and God simultaneously causes his own existance and nonexistence at every single point in time.
 
2009-03-26 10:48:44 PM  
Egalitarian: Um why does CDP post these long semi nonsensical arguments against evolution and then include a sardonic photoshop at the end of each one?

\that's a lot of effort for trolling


I think its a copy/paste. Its too fast to type that nonsense.

Hes definitely trolling, as every cartoon is the opposite of what he argues.

I think he was simply waiting for people to figure out and then...

3.bp.blogspot.com

Hot.
 
2009-03-26 10:49:29 PM  
zeph`: 1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.
4. That first cause is a god.
5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.


6. zeph' knows nothing of science or logic.
 
2009-03-26 10:49:33 PM  
shipofthesun: Ahhh the troll is revealed. 9/10. A little too dogmatic.

It wasn't obviously earlier? :/

I haven't been posting enough in evolution threads lately, I guess. At one point I made some friends with my pro-evolution comments.
 
2009-03-26 10:49:37 PM  
wippit: What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt?

The same god that creates man in his image and then kills them when they don't behave the way he wants?
 
2009-03-26 10:49:38 PM  
ninjakirby: There are some species which propagate themselves via cloning, to a degree. (SCIENCE!)

Nope, that is not the same thing as what I am referring to. There are asexually reproducing animals like hydras and other creatures--that is nothing new. But no species exists for long with just one member. The probability that any particular mutation would be lethal would be exponentially higher with such a small genome.
 
2009-03-26 10:50:08 PM  
Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 6. zeph' knows nothing of science or logic.

To be quite honest, I assuredly know more about logic than you do.
 
2009-03-26 10:50:32 PM  
I thought they settled all this shiat with State v Scopes in 19-farking-26!

/dumb masses!
 
2009-03-26 10:50:51 PM  
evolvefish.com
 
2009-03-26 10:50:58 PM  
zeph`: bartink: Circular argument.

More like scientific evidence - it's based on observation after all.

bartink: Its really only evidence of a universe.

1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.
4. That first cause is a god.
5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.


Let's look at the logic.

1. All existing things were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.

OK, I can give you this one.

2. No things are uncaused.

K.

3. That first cause is a god.

*record screech* Say what?
You still need evidence. You have none.

Also, there's this problem:

1. All existing things were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. If "god" exists, he/she/it must have been caused.

Oh hey. How about that.

Neither physics nor religion can demonstrate entirely how the universe was created.

But, physicists are at least trying to explain why the universe exists (and how it exists) instead of just pointing at the unknown and saying "God did it!"
 
2009-03-26 10:51:06 PM  
zeph`: It wasn't obviously earlier? :/

I haven't been posting enough in evolution threads lately, I guess. At one point I made some friends with my pro-evolution comments.



Kid, a 9/10 from me means you hooked your mother. Good one.
 
2009-03-26 10:51:21 PM  
zeph`: the_cnidarian: Ok, but what didn't cause God to unexist then?

Everything that isn't God, and God simultaneously causes his own existance and nonexistence at every single point in time.


That's way too complicated.

Time is a function of our universe. If God created the universe, God also created time, and therefore exists outside of time. Since God's existence is outside of time, from our point of view he has always existed, and always will.
 
2009-03-26 10:51:30 PM  
Somacandra: WIki misunderstand

1. Wikipedia understands everything.
2. Therefore you are wrong.

That was too easy.
 
2009-03-26 10:51:35 PM  
zeph`: 1. God directed evolution.

Have you ever thought that maybe evolution of the brain resulted in the belief that a God exists? Think about it and then read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

Now consider the following:

1.) Patients fortunate enough to awaken from a coma typically have no concept of time and experience almost continuous lucid dreaming.

2.)The brain uses electrical signals to convey the senses.

3.)The "God Helmet" uses unbiased electrical signals, stimulating a specific part of the brain in no particular manner. 80 percent of his participants experience a presence beside them in the room, which they variously say feels like God or someone they knew who had died.

4.)Maybe Spinoza wins the argument and your perception of God was just an artifact of evolution that served a purpose at some point in time, earlier in the evolutionary path of homo sapiens.

Consider reading up on Naturalistic Pantheism. Just a thought.....

/Agnostic
 
2009-03-26 10:51:41 PM  
wippit:
What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt?


That would be:

The Christian God

Link (new window)
 
2009-03-26 10:51:50 PM  
Oh, for the sake of...

You guys know you're being played by CDP, right?

Step 1: paste some ID/Creationist argument written by someone else entirely followed by a funny cartoon making fun of creationists

Step 2: watch as Farkers fall over themselves to refute an argument you didn't even come up with

Step 3: Rinse and repeat indefinitely for entertainment value
 
2009-03-26 10:52:29 PM  
wippit: What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt? freeze its opponents with a ball of ice energy then uppercut it into shards?

upload.wikimedia.org

Oh yeah. That's the stuff.
 
2009-03-26 10:52:54 PM  
Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 6. zeph' knows nothing of science or logic.

His profile says he has an undergrad in it.

He's trolling.

I'm just hitting myself on the head for falling for it for a few posts. Its extremely logical with obvious fallacies. Its way too clever for a fundie.
 
2009-03-26 10:53:11 PM  
bobbette: You still need evidence. You have none.

bobbette: Oh hey. How about that.

I already posted arguments against both of these objections.
 
2009-03-26 10:53:14 PM  
bartink: Egalitarian: Um why does CDP post these long semi nonsensical arguments against evolution and then include a sardonic photoshop at the end of each one?

\that's a lot of effort for trolling

I think its a copy/paste. Its too fast to type that nonsense.

Hes definitely trolling, as every cartoon is the opposite of what he argues.

I think he was simply waiting for people to figure out and then...



Hot.


Meh, I figured it out, but I wanted to dig in and fling poo anyways.
 
2009-03-26 10:53:16 PM  
CDP
The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory. Yet, there is no life on Mars.

So the fact that my head has all the conditions necessary to provide lice with the spark of live, and yet there are no lice present at this time means that there were never and never will be lice? In fact that would mean that if my hair follicles were people they would believe that lice could never exist...

But then again look at all the people around you, some of them have lice, can we take that as proof they exist? Or is that person just Intelligently Gifted?
 
2009-03-26 10:53:16 PM  
Egalitarian: that's a lot of effort for trolling

Look, if you're gonna troll, you might as well go all the way. Why leave any room for half-asshattery?
 
2009-03-26 10:53:38 PM  
love it

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Link (new window)

/clapton is god, lol
 
2009-03-26 10:53:42 PM  
I find it odd that I consider moving to Texas more and more. Even weirder when France is in the mix of places I'd like to move.
 
2009-03-26 10:54:04 PM  
SleepyMcGee: wippit: What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt?

The same god that creates man in his image and then kills them when they don't behave the way he wants?


See, now you're confusing creation with religion. The Bible was written by men. I can't help it if other men follow what was written...
 
2009-03-26 10:54:26 PM  
zeph`: It wasn't obviously earlier? :/

I thought you were snarking with me if that makes you feel any better, but given the quality of participants I thought it'd be a good idea to show how that train of logic doesn't go anywhere.

/The "You Lose" thing helped to get me to bite though
//damn antagonist *shakes fist of impotent rage*
 
2009-03-26 10:54:37 PM  
zeph`: bobbette: You still need evidence. You have none.

bobbette: Oh hey. How about that.

I already posted arguments against both of these objections.


The mere fact that you posted arguments doesn't make them right. Also, a tautology doesn't actually provide an explanation.
 
2009-03-26 10:55:05 PM  
SoxSweepAgain: ARE YOU FARKING KIDDING ME???

/You can't be serious.


Dude, look at the cartoons.
 
2009-03-26 10:55:20 PM  
zeph`: Everything that isn't God, and God simultaneously causes his own existance and nonexistence at every single point in time.

If I had some weed, I'd fire it up right now. I'm pretty sure this thread would blow my mind, man.
 
2009-03-26 10:55:37 PM  
idsfa: triton.imageshack.us

Sorry, images aren't forceful counter-arguments.

bartink: His profile says he has an undergrad in it.

And, if things go well, a MA after this upcoming year.
 
2009-03-26 10:55:49 PM  
zeph`: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 6. zeph' knows nothing of science or logic.

To be quite honest, I assuredly know more about logic than you do.


Trolling or not, it's not evident in your post.
 
2009-03-26 10:56:18 PM  
idsfa:
1. img89.imageshack.us
2. img142.imageshack.us
3. img225.imageshack.us
4. img225.imageshack.us
5. img142.imageshack.us


ROFL!!!

Flawless victory.
 
2009-03-26 10:56:49 PM  
ChrisSuperstar: I live in Dallas, and was afraid I would have to be disgusted YET AGAIN by my state and its usual, fundie-Christian superstitious nonsense

You don't have to be afraid. You can help.

Freedom from Religion Foundation

National Center for Science Education

Americans United for Separation of Church and State



www.thealmightyguru.com

No, Reverend. The First Amendment was for your protection.
 
2009-03-26 10:56:59 PM  
img.moronail.net

Not relevant to the subject but,
I don't care.
This stupid cartoon actually made me laugh
the first time I saw it.
LOL.

By the way:
"God told me to tell you..."

/fill in the blank
 
2009-03-26 10:57:18 PM  
zeph`: Sorry, images aren't forceful counter-arguments.

What if he typed out the words in the images, would that be more forceful a counter-argument?
 
2009-03-26 10:57:26 PM  
eqtworld: wippit:
What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt?

That would be:

The Christian God

Link (new window)


Not all Christians are Catholics. Some are even pro-gay marriage. That's like saying all Texans are...


... oh....
 
2009-03-26 10:58:26 PM  
bobbette: The mere fact that you posted arguments doesn't make them right.

The mere fact that you posted a comment to the effect of denying the fact that my posts are correct solely on the basis of having been posted does not imply that my posts are incorrect.

the_cnidarian: If I had some weed, I'd fire it up right now. I'm pretty sure this thread would blow my mind, man.

Impressing people high out of their minds: it's what philosophy is good for.

Murkanen: train of logic doesn't go anywhere.

The arguments are all patently ridiculous, but they've all been considered quite forceful at some point after their conceptions. I'm unhappy I didn't get to argue Pascal's wager.
 
2009-03-26 10:58:27 PM  
zeph`:
1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. God is not uncaused.
2. A god has the power to bring himself into existence.
3. God caused God to exist.


Okay that was probably a troll, but I'll bite anyway:

1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. The Universe is not uncaused.
2. A Universe has the power to bring himself into existence.
3. The universe caused the universe to exist.

This "logic" fails equally well no matter what you substitute for God, whether it be Universe, Zeus, FSM, Satan, Shiva, Luke Skywalker, Inara, etc.
 
2009-03-26 10:59:40 PM  
www.roflcat.com
 
2009-03-26 10:59:49 PM  
wippit: Not all Christians are Catholics.

most are

wippit: Some are even pro-gay marriage.

well how nice of them to allow others to do such things!
 
2009-03-26 11:01:01 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: What if he typed out the words in the images, would that be more forceful a counter-argument?

Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.

Just an observation.
 
2009-03-26 11:01:14 PM  
zeph`: bobbette: The mere fact that you posted arguments doesn't make them right.

The mere fact that you posted a comment to the effect of denying the fact that my posts are correct solely on the basis of having been posted does not imply that my posts are incorrect.


Right. Which is why right after I posted that comment, I pointed out that your entire argument is tautological. Which is not an implication, but a direct statement, that your posts are incorrect.
 
2009-03-26 11:02:40 PM  
eqtworld: wippit: Not all Christians are Catholics.


Hell, not all believers are Christian. There's lots of potential gods out there.
 
2009-03-26 11:02:56 PM  
Look, Heisenberg had it right. Or not. We may or may not be vibrating strings of energy on a two dimensional surface projected into a 5 dimensional universe that is but one of an infinite number of universes that randomly occur in an infinite superspace...I can almost see why the poor dears get overwhelmed. But then, why can't they just admit "I don't understand this at all, so I'll let those of you who are smarter do the teachin', and I'll go back to driving fenceposts" or whatever. I suppose the ego, that enemy of logic and reason.
 
2009-03-26 11:03:10 PM  
idsfa: //Work on it or your committee will kick your ass, n00b

Lulz, too true.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Trolling or not, it's not evident in your post.

No, it really isn't.
 
2009-03-26 11:03:57 PM  
Trayal: Okay that was probably a troll, but I'll bite anyway:

There's actually a pretty easy test:

Those who deny evolution are trolling.

100% accuracy on that one. Screw Poe's Law.
 
2009-03-26 11:04:04 PM  
zeph`: PC LOAD LETTER: What if he typed out the words in the images, would that be more forceful a counter-argument?

Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.

Just an observation.


A flawed observation, since I created the images ...
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 11:04:10 PM  
shipofthesun: CDP: Well, Mars was once sterile, but it is not sterile now. The rovers and other probes sent to Mars have contaminated the plant with bacteria, viruses and other possible organisms. This contamination has destroyed the possibility of proving that these life forms evolved on Mars.

The chance of finding evidence of past life forms on Mars seems very remote, but even if life were found, it does not prove that life evolved any more than life on Earth proves evolution. It simply does not. Evolutionists have struck out again.

So no matter what we find on Mars, or any other planet, evolutionary theory is wrong because...you say so? I would just like to point out the methane plumes that have been found with no sign of chemical origin, and the fact that the rovers and all probes are cleanroom bacteria and virus free, and...aw, who am I kidding? You lack the capacity to understand the most basic of scientific ideas, dismissing them out of hand, or you are a troll, either way, get up, take off all your clothes, and go lie down in field. Every single other thing in your life is based on science, and the true faith based approach involves some lilies and a field, if I'm not mistaken. So go, and be true.


Differing Assumptions

The main difference between scientists who are creationists and those who are evolutionists is their starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have a different view of history, but the way they do science in the present is the same. Both creationists and evolutionists use observation and experimentation to draw conclusions about nature. This is the nature of observational science. It involves repeatable experimentation and observations in the present. Since observational scientific theories are capable of being tested in the present, creationists and evolutionists are generally in agreement on these models. They agree on the nature of gravity, the composition of stars, the speed of light in a vacuum, the size of the solar system, the principles of electricity, etc. These things can be checked and tested in the present.

But historical events cannot be checked scientifically in the present. This is because we do not have access to the past; it is gone. All that we have is the circumstantial evidence (relics) of past events. Although we can make educated guesses about the past and can make inferences from things like fossils and rocks, we cannot directly test our conclusions because we cannot repeat the past. Furthermore, since creationists and evolutionists have very different views of history, it is not surprising that they reconstruct past events very differently. We all have the same evidence; but in order to draw conclusions about what the evidence means, we use our worldview-our most basic beliefs about the nature of reality. Since they have different starting assumptions, creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence to mean very different things.

Ultimately, biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the Bible as their starting point. Evolutionists reject recorded history, and have effectively made up their own pseudo-history, which they use as a starting point for interpreting evidence. Both are using their beliefs about the past to interpret the evidence in the present. When we look at the scientific evidence today, we find that it is very consistent with biblical history and not as consistent with millions of years of evolution. We've seen in this book that the scientific evidence is consistent with biblical creation. We've seen that the geological evidence is consistent with a global Flood-not millions of years of gradual deposition. We've seen that the changes in DNA are consistent with the loss of information we would expect as a result of the Curse described in Genesis 3, not the hypothetical gain of massive quantities of genetic information required by molecules-to-man evolution. Real science confirms the Bible.

Real Scientists

It shouldn't be surprising that there have been many real scientists who believed in biblical creation. Consider Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics. Newton had profound knowledge of, and faith in, the Bible. Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), the Swedish botanist who developed the double-Latin-name system for taxonomic classification of plants and animals, also believed the Genesis creation account. So also did the Dutch geologist Nicolaus Steno (1631-1686), who developed the basic principles of stratigraphy.

Even in the early 19th century when the idea of millions of years was developed, there were prominent Bible-believing English scientists, such as chemists Andrew Ure (1778-1857) and John Murray (1786?-1851), entomologist William Kirby (1759-1850), and geologist George Young (1777-1848). James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. Indeed, Maxwell's equations are what make radio transmissions possible. He was a deep student of Scripture and was firmly opposed to evolution. These and many other great scientists have believed the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and it was their Christian faith that was the driving motivation and intellectual foundation of their excellent scientific work.......................

Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn't be surprising, since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. This is not to say that noncreationists cannot be scientists. But, in a way, an evolutionist is being inconsistent when he or she does science. The big bang supporter claims the universe is a random chance event, and yet he or she studies it as if it were logical and orderly. The evolutionist is thus forced to borrow certain creationist principles in order to do science. The universe is logical and orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible. On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the byproducts of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 11:05:09 PM  
idsfa: Argumentum ad Imaginibus

LOLfarkingL
 
2009-03-26 11:05:15 PM  
zeph`: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Trolling or not, it's not evident in your post.

No, it really isn't.


At least we agree on that.
 
2009-03-26 11:05:25 PM  
bobbette: Right. Which is why right after I posted that comment, I pointed out that your entire argument is tautological. Which is not an implication, but a direct statement, that your posts are incorrect.

Besides the fact that nothing I posted was done with any amount of conviction or belief in its truth or validity: Tautological reasoning - valid or no?
 
2009-03-26 11:05:50 PM  
tinyarena
By the way:
"God told me to tell you..."

/fill in the blank


RTFA & STFU?
Tits or GTFO?
Your dog wants steak?
3. profit???
 
2009-03-26 11:05:57 PM  
chef_riggy: Or Goddesses NSFW (new window)

godfap!
 
2009-03-26 11:06:17 PM  
Ludovicus: Tiamat's a real goddess, dumbass.

Please examine this statement for internal inconsistency.
 
2009-03-26 11:06:48 PM  
idsfa: A flawed observation, since I created the images ...

The words "generally" and "probably" obviously mean something different to you than they do to me.
 
2009-03-26 11:09:10 PM  
eqtworld: godfap!

Tell Gorgor I said "hi", nnnkay?
 
2009-03-26 11:10:15 PM  
Science without religion is bound to kill you
Why do you need religion to be a moral being ? Many religions (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Hebraic et al ) have committed more than their fair share of immorality over the centuries. If you live by a philosophy that teaches you to respect others you will live a reasonably moral life.You don't have to belong to a religion to find that philosophy.
 
2009-03-26 11:10:18 PM  
ninjakirby: www.roflcat.com

Hehe. This thread evolved very quickly from an 'evolution and science education' thread into an 'incredibly bad logic and the people who can't stand it' thread.
 
2009-03-26 11:10:35 PM  
zeph`: idsfa: A flawed observation, since I created the images ...

The words "generally" and "probably" obviously mean something different to you than they do to me.


I haven't had time to make a good "weasel words" graphic. Your response was clearly directed at me, so your attempt to legitimize your failed argument also fails.

This is the closest I have for you:
img512.imageshack.us

Careful, you're bordering on
img48.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-26 11:10:39 PM  
zeph`: Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.

If the person can post the corresponding image to demonstrate the fallacy of an argument, it is reasonable to assume the person does understand what is incorrect in the argument and is merely using an abbreviated response; explanations of proper logic to those who use faulty logic are inevitably long and repetitious and devolve into tangents which are common amongst most proffering misinformation.

My opinion, at least.
 
2009-03-26 11:10:58 PM  
ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.



ARGUMENT FROM IDENTITY (PC ARGUMENT)
(1) Believing in God is a central part of my identity.
(2) You don't mean to deny my identity do you?
(3) Therefore, God exists.
 
2009-03-26 11:12:52 PM  
Kali-Yuga: ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.



ARGUMENT FROM IDENTITY (PC ARGUMENT)
(1) Believing in God is a central part of my identity.
(2) You don't mean to deny my identity do you?
(3) Therefore, God exists.


img329.imageshack.us

and

img74.imageshack.us


/Just 'cause I haven't really used these in a while ...
 
2009-03-26 11:13:46 PM  
CDP: And this shouldn't be surprising, since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation.

One little statement, one tiny, little, made up, completely untrue statement, and everything else in your comment is rendered logically neutered. God is apparently not in the details.
 
2009-03-26 11:14:00 PM  
Vangor: If the person can post the corresponding image to demonstrate the fallacy of an argument

Sure, but constructing a valid counter-argument that proves the negation of the conclusion of the original argument is far more forceful. Pointing out logical fallacies does nothing to deny a fallacious argument's conclusion, only to point out (correctly) that that conclusion is not directly entailed by the premises - the truth or falsity of the conclusion remains unestablished.
 
2009-03-26 11:14:00 PM  
Pharque-it: zeph`: 4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.

This was a great pull out of your ass!

TOTAL FAIL!


yea- gotta say I was wondering how #4 worked too.
 
2009-03-26 11:14:06 PM  
zeph`: bobbette: Right. Which is why right after I posted that comment, I pointed out that your entire argument is tautological. Which is not an implication, but a direct statement, that your posts are incorrect.

Besides the fact that nothing I posted was done with any amount of conviction or belief in its truth or validity: Tautological reasoning - valid or no?


Because you were trying to prove an assertion with a tautology as evidence, it is invalid.
 
2009-03-26 11:14:29 PM  
CDP: And this shouldn't be surprising, since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation.

Thank you. I was afraid I would go to bed tonight without a mind numbing idiotic comment from someone on fark.
 
2009-03-26 11:15:50 PM  
Befuddled: So if an intelligent designer made the whole universe, why did he bother making anything other than the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon? Couldn't we do quite nicely without all the rest of that stuff which makes up far and away the vast majority of the observable universe? It's not like we have any real hope of reaching any other inhabitable planets as the distances are just too great. Wouldn't God's chosen beings be better off without comets and asteroids which have the potential to wipe out all life on Earth?

Or viruses, or scoliosis, or flat feet, or headaches, or ________ (you name it).


/Now for a random off-topic lolcat

icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-03-26 11:16:11 PM  
Wonko Fortytwo: CDP = Bevets (abbreviated)

Bevets devolved into CDP.


Not even close. Bevets used much more linking and scripture citation.
 
2009-03-26 11:16:52 PM  
idsfa: I haven't had time to make a good "weasel words" graphic. Your response was clearly directed at me, so your attempt to legitimize your failed argument also fails.

The observation isn't flawed though, and my comment didn't attempt to legitimize my obviously ridiculous arguments. Pointing out that you do not conform to my observation when I made the non-universality of my observation explicit does nothing.
 
2009-03-26 11:17:13 PM  
CDP is an amazing troll.

That's all I got. Amazing troll.
 
2009-03-26 11:18:32 PM  
zeph`: heinekenftw: Then what caused God to exist?

1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. God is not uncaused.
2. A god has the power to bring himself into existence.
3. God caused God to exist.


Heh.

Have fun with that.

/Maybe you already are; we all need our opiate, apparently.
 
2009-03-26 11:18:40 PM  
zeph`: ninjakirby: www.roflcat.com

Hehe. This thread evolved very quickly from an 'evolution and science education' thread into an 'incredibly bad logic and the people who can't stand it' thread.


I'm really just getting a kick out of people biting on CDP and your faux-arguments. Its cracking me up.
 
2009-03-26 11:19:40 PM  
Finger51: Wonko Fortytwo: CDP = Bevets (abbreviated)

Bevets devolved into CDP.

Not even close. Bevets used much more linking and scripture citation.


Yes, he was OCgD.

/Obsessive-Compulsive god Disorder.
 
2009-03-26 11:19:57 PM  
There's a reason Texas has to guarantee a place in their own state colleges for any high school 'graduate'.
 
2009-03-26 11:20:26 PM  
zeph`: Pointing out logical fallacies does nothing to deny a fallacious argument's conclusion, only to point out (correctly) that that conclusion is not directly entailed by the premises - the truth or falsity of the conclusion remains unestablished.

True; the problem is you were using logical arguments to reach conclusions. If the logic is faulty the conclusion is therefore void. This says nothing to the veracity of the conclusion specifically, only that it is not yet true. However, claims which are not supported are, by default, false as a matter of practicality and necessity.
 
2009-03-26 11:20:31 PM  
zeph`:
The observation isn't flawed though, and my comment didn't attempt to legitimize my obviously ridiculous arguments. Pointing out that you do not conform to my observation when I made the non-universality of my observation explicit does nothing.


You're not even trying anymore. :-(

img512.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-26 11:20:48 PM  
eggrolls: There's a reason Texas has to guarantee a place in their own state colleges for any high school 'graduate'.

No they don't.
 
2009-03-26 11:21:00 PM  
zeph`: Somacandra: WIki misunderstand

1. Wikipedia understands everything.
2. Therefore you are wrong.

That was too easy.
[citation needed]
 
2009-03-26 11:21:24 PM  
bobbette: Because you were trying to prove an assertion with a tautology as evidence, it is invalid.

So if I say something like:

1. A implies B
2. A implies ~B
3. A implies (B and ~B)
4. ~(B and ~B) (Tautology)
Therefore,
5. ~A

Have I not constructed a valid argument using a tautology as evidence for the truth of the conclusion?
 
2009-03-26 11:21:30 PM  
zeph`: Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.

Just an observation.


So is he supposed to invent a new logical fallacy or something? Your post hit every single one of the logical fallacies listed. Do you know WHY your arguments are the logical fallacies listed? Because they are.

Allow me:

1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.

The odds of a god existing are 0. Now our premises can never be accepted by each other. Discussion over. Neither premise can be deduced or otherwise elucidated. The only advantage my statement has is that things that are not shown to exist can be said to not exist. That doesn't mean that this statement is immutable, just that they don't exist now. What you are saying is that there is some sort of reason that a god NECESSARILY HAS TO exist. This needs defending. Show your work.

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

Define how something can be determined to have a positive chance of occurring. After that, explain why something MUST BE if it MIGHT BE, given time. And of course how much time is the key. Infinity is not a real concept for practical application. Is a billion years enough for everything deemed to have a "positive chance" to happen? A trillion? A quadrillion? How much time until I can have slippery shower sex with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, Christina Ricci and Monica Bellucci?

3. A god will exist after a certain period of time.

I am not sure if this is more begging the question or affirmation of the consequent, but either way, we have not shown God to exist based on the previous items, therefore we cannot accept this item.

4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.

This is just made up crap. Show your work. It's also circular, hence begging the question.

5. A god exists currently.

This becomes a bare assertion simply because nothing has been demonstrated.

/class dismissed
 
2009-03-26 11:23:17 PM  
zeph`: So if I say something like:

1. A implies B
2. A implies ~B
3. A implies (B and ~B)
4. ~(B and ~B) (Tautology)
Therefore,
5. ~A

Have I not constructed a valid argument using a tautology as evidence for the truth of the conclusion?


But that's not what you were saying.

A and B were not even acceptable premises.
 
2009-03-26 11:24:34 PM  
idsfa: You're not even trying anymore. :-(

Huh? I'm being honest now.

Me: I observe that generally A.
You: Well I'm a case of ~A, therefore that observation is incorrect!
Me: It was qualified with "generally"...
 
2009-03-26 11:25:48 PM  
zeph`: idsfa: You're not even trying anymore. :-(

Huh? I'm being honest now.

Me: I observe that generally A.
You: Well I'm a case of ~A, therefore that observation is incorrect!
Me: It was qualified with "generally"...


Precision indicates care, man.
 
2009-03-26 11:28:00 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: A and B were not even acceptable premises.

Then it was a soundness problem, not a validity problem.

PC LOAD LETTER: Because they are.

I don't disagree with you. At all. As a matter of fact, I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, pointing out logical fallacies is a lazy and generally unconvincing way of refuting argument, because they don't direct establish the falsity of the conclusion of the original argument. I don't deny that they're useful, just that they're overplayed - if you really wanted to demonstrate any understanding of the topic you'd attempt to show how not only is my logic awful, but my conclusion actively false.
 
2009-03-26 11:28:13 PM  
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...


CDP, this would be the most hilarious troll if there weren't people who really think like this. Please stop trolling and encouraging them. It's disheartening.

My blood pressure went up 20% from reading this thread. So full of stupid. So full of fail.

Please, please, I am begging you Christians. Admit to yourself that the gig is up. We won't judge you for believing. Just stop spouting nonsense.

Please.

Sincerely,
The usually jocular but now somber,
Crazyeddie.
 
2009-03-26 11:29:07 PM  
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.


Oh goodie, an argument.
Okay, so according to your bla bla, the eye is the result of intelligent design. Alright, I propose we hunt down the engineer and string them up from a tall tree.

Why? Here goes: who the heck designs an eye that is
(a) backward - this is where the receptors are,
(b) totally blind - why we need lenses, ore lenses and eyeball jelly, and then
(c) transmits the darned pictures upside-down?

If that's an example of intelligent design, I'd hate to see the prototype.

ID is an idiots' way of explaining anything and everything by pointing their finger in the sky and saying, "it came from there," then painting all manner of superstitions, rules and what-not.
 
2009-03-26 11:29:37 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: How much time until I can have slippery shower sex with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, Christina Ricci and Monica Bellucci?

Hot.
 
2009-03-26 11:29:50 PM  
zeph`: So if I say something like:

1. A implies B
2. A implies ~B
3. A implies (B and ~B)
4. ~(B and ~B) (Tautology)
Therefore,
5. ~A

Have I not constructed a valid argument using a tautology as evidence for the truth of the conclusion?


I want to take a shot at this, but before I do, what exactly is the use of the tilde signifying here? As I see it now, I think I have an error in the reasoning that invalidates the conclusion, but I'm unsure.


Whats the dealio?
 
2009-03-26 11:30:05 PM  
zeph`: Hot.

No argument.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-26 11:30:14 PM  
gimpols1908: CDP
The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory. Yet, there is no life on Mars.

So the fact that my head has all the conditions necessary to provide lice with the spark of live, and yet there are no lice present at this time means that there were never and never will be lice? In fact that would mean that if my hair follicles were people they would believe that lice could never exist...

But then again look at all the people around you, some of them have lice, can we take that as proof they exist? Or is that person just Intelligently Gifted?


Evolutionists insist that it took millions, even billions of years for life to evolve from non-life. But we must remember that this is an either-or situation, much like a toggle switch. Something is either living or dead. If evolution is true, then this transition must have happened one time in the past, and it would have taken place in an instant, not millions of years. Scientists should then be able to duplicate this event, and show that it was a spontaneous occurrence. Why haven't they been able to do so, especially since this might be one way they could falsify the creation hypothesis? All they need to do is to take off-the-shelf dead chemicals, create life from them, and show that this transition is spontaneous and takes place as a normal course of events given a scenario for the origin of the earth.

This arena is a philosophical wasteland given our current knowledge of molecular biology. The molecules that make up life are incredibly complex, using amino acids, bases and sugars as an alphabet to code a monstrous object-oriented computer program that constructs the materials making up living systems. All life consists of this same basic underlying design, and all life has the same degree of complexity even at the basic cellular level. Consider that the technology that makes the bumblebee fly is much more sophisticated that a Boeing 747, and it is reduced down to operate at the molecular level. Our most advanced computers have not achieved that yet. The task of trying to constructing these systems chemically breaks down at the most simple level. The reagents needed to produce sugars used in DNA conflicts with the reagents needed to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. When these are formed artificially, equal mixtures of two isomers are formed, yet both sugars and amino acids use only one isomer. There is no wonder that attempts at creating life in a test tube from non-life results in nothing but burnt amino acids.

Here's another experiment you can try. Squash a hundred bugs, put the entrails in a test tube, mix it up and produce life from the chemicals. All of the tough chemistry is already done for you there, why can't you bring it to life? It appears that life is much more than merely physics and chemistry; it is a creation of God! The only escape from this is to hide behind millions of years of trial and error. This is an invalid argument. Since biological chemicals break down much more easily that they are constructed, time becomes an enemy to evolution. This problem is reflected at the species level: extinction occurs much more readily than the origin of new species. The chemistry of life toggles the switch immediately to the off position once death occurs. The off position is permanent and irreversible. If evolutionists want us to accept their theory, they need to demonstrate a scenario where cold, dead chemicals can be sparked to life. I've tried that. All you get is brown sticky goo.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 11:30:18 PM  
zeph`: bobbette: Because you were trying to prove an assertion with a tautology as evidence, it is invalid.

So if I say something like:

1. A implies B
2. A implies ~B
3. A implies (B and ~B)
4. ~(B and ~B) (Tautology)
Therefore,
5. ~A

Have I not constructed a valid argument using a tautology as evidence for the truth of the conclusion?


Just stop. Although you are making equally-intelligent yet non-deluded minds to actually stop and think for a few seconds as you're deconstructed.

/Tautology, from a religious person. Shiver.
 
2009-03-26 11:30:52 PM  
Sooo ... Do you accept that P or Q = Q or P?

/No, I'm not going to do the whole thing.
 
2009-03-26 11:31:54 PM  
Vangor: ninjakirby: I mean, he's really, seriously, implying that spells in DnD are REAL MAGICAL SPELLS. And that's just farking hilarious.



I absolutely love this one. My nerdom practically rages at all of the problems associated with this, at least according to 3.5 rules. Not locating a trap doesn't automatically trigger it, DMs don't "declare" people dead, any person attached to their character probably has someone in party capable of resurrection or the ability to pay a priest elsewhere, poisons don't do damage, she'd get a reflex roll from any sort of poisonous trap anyway, yadda yadda yadda.


I've killed people outright like that and seen other GMs do it as well, but it take serious player stupidity for that to happen, of the "I wedge myself in the giant roller trap trusting that my indestructible link mail will protect me!" variety.

Plus, even if no one could res, or the res failed (I dunno, can that still happen in 3.5?) rendering the PC irrevocably dead...

"Okay, start rerolling and we'll get your new PC hooked up with the group the next time they're in town."
"Can I have a +2 dagger like Black Leaf had?"
"No."
 
2009-03-26 11:32:50 PM  
Link (new window) NSFW

/for all the religious "nuts"
 
2009-03-26 11:32:50 PM  
ninjakirby: Renart: ninjakirby: HAH YOU DOGMATIC FOOL YOU HAVE FINALLY REVEALED TO US THE RELIGION THAT IS DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. ONLY A PRIEST OF HIGH KNOWLEDGE ARCANA COULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THIS TRUTH SO QUICKLY.

[Satanic D&D Ritual Panel]

Easily my favorite Chick tract!

This is my favorite panel from that tract:



I mean, he's really, seriously, implying that spells in DnD are REAL MAGICAL SPELLS. And that's just farking hilarious.


The devil is very real to Jack Chick, and is constantly coming up with new schemes (rock and roll, D&D, the fossil record) to ensnare us!

This one's good, too:

img.photobucket.com

Help! I can't tell whether I'm an eighth-level cleric named "Elfstar" or a junior high school student!
 
2009-03-26 11:33:04 PM  
zeph`: Unfortunately, pointing out logical fallacies is a lazy and generally unconvincing way of refuting argument, because they don't direct establish the falsity of the conclusion of the original argument

Do you think people who actually use faulty logic care about any amount of discussion with regards to a topic? I find the images to be a useful manner of mockery which simply say the argument is not worth discussing because the argument is invalid at its core. Regardless of the validity of information, the conclusion is still not reached, so why argue the information?

If I make a faulty assertion where someone denotes a fallacy, via image or otherwise, I have two options; I may either accept my argument as fallacious and attempt to reach my conclusion via another argument or I can explain why the fallacy does not apply. By default, conclusions do not stand because the opposite conclusion would therefore automatically stand and be contradictory, obviously.
 
2009-03-26 11:33:08 PM  
crazyeddie: CDP, this would be the most hilarious troll if there weren't people who really think like this. Please stop trolling and encouraging them. It's disheartening.

He's not technically trolling, and you'll notice that what he posts are merely direct quotes from the people who think like this.

I consider it 'immersive disedutainment'.
 
2009-03-26 11:33:28 PM  
SoxSweepAgain: Just stop

Dude - that's a valid argument. It's a case of modus tollens. Furthermore, I've stated multiple times that I agree with EVERY criticism leveled against my originally ridiculous arguments.

SoxSweepAgain: /Tautology, from a religious person.

I'm an agnostic athiest.

ninjakirby: Whats the dealio?

The tilde is not, but there's no use in trying to point out a flaw with that argument, it's correct. If anything implies a contradiction that thing is false. In this case, A implies the contradiction (B and not B), therefore A cannot be the case.
 
2009-03-26 11:35:06 PM  
Finger51: Wonko Fortytwo: CDP = Bevets (abbreviated)

Bevets devolved into CDP.

Not even close. Bevets used much more linking and scripture citation.

-------------------------------------

** Wisper** CDP is a Loki Troll, from the Norse mythology , the god of mischief.....
 
2009-03-26 11:35:11 PM  
zeph`: As a matter of fact, I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, pointing out logical fallacies is a lazy and generally unconvincing way of refuting argument, because they don't direct establish the falsity of the conclusion of the original argument.

You've said that several times.

1. You assume that someone disagrees with the conclusion that God exists. They could agree with you and simply dislike poor logic.

2. You assume that someone has any conclusion at all about whether God exists. They might very well be agnostic, like me.

3. You assume that typing more words is more convincing to others than simply posting a pic because it works that way with you. To be fair, I'm assuming that assumption.
 
2009-03-26 11:35:12 PM  
Vangor: Do you think people who actually use faulty logic care about any amount of discussion with regards to a topic?

No, and I guess my fault in this is conflating the kind of philosophy I do in actuality with the discussion that goes on here. Not to say there aren't intelligent people in here, but they generally aren't on the side of obviously flawed arguments - I can understand the use of the images as a time saver.
 
2009-03-26 11:35:56 PM  
bartink: God exists. They might very well be agnostic, like me

Agnosticism has literally nothing to do with the existence of god. Are you reverse trolling me?
 
2009-03-26 11:37:05 PM  
zeph`: Agnosticism has literally nothing to do with the existence of god

Not literally nothing, but agnosticism isn't a position on existence, rather on knowledge. On the ability to know the existence of a certain kind of thing, I guess.
 
2009-03-26 11:37:08 PM  
A Dark Evil Omen: I've killed people outright like that and seen other GMs do it as well

We have a great deal of those occurrences which usually result in the phrase, "so...what do you actually do instead of instantly killing yourself?"

However, I do not believe resurrections can fail except when specifically denoted, such as disintegrate (true resurrections, limited wish/wish, similar might work).
 
2009-03-26 11:37:31 PM  
idsfa: Sooo ... Do you accept that P or Q = Q or P?

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


bp3.blogger.com

Abb3w!
 
2009-03-26 11:39:29 PM  
idsfa: Sooo ... Do you accept that P or Q = Q or P?

Yes, but his overarching project is ridiculous.
 
2009-03-26 11:40:23 PM  
zeph`: Not literally nothing, but agnosticism isn't a position on existence, rather on knowledge. On the ability to know the existence of a certain kind of thing, I guess.

Perhaps your definition of agnosticism is different than mine.
 
2009-03-26 11:40:54 PM  
zeph`: idsfa: Sooo ... Do you accept that P or Q = Q or P?

Yes, but his overarching project is ridiculous.


I don't think I consider your argument to be fully formed. ;-)
 
2009-03-26 11:42:34 PM  
Renart: The devil is very real to Jack Chick, and is constantly coming up with new schemes (rock and roll, D&D, the fossil record) to ensnare us!

It's been so long since I though of Jack Chick's particular brand of batshiat insane. Thank you, and the others above who posted the D&D pics. It's like he draws what Glenn Beck sees.

/Elfstar? That's a horrible name
 
2009-03-26 11:42:58 PM  
Damn activist school boards!
 
2009-03-26 11:44:23 PM  
CDP: Human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, Earth's population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago, comparing very well with the number of people on Noah's Ark. Based on evolution's claim for the origin of man, the same ½ percent growth calculation for the human race results in a huge present day population that can not be justified by the fossil record or current statistics.[34]

• Rivers pour tons of material every year into the Earth's oceans. Scientists know with a fair degree of accuracy the quantity of each element's influx as well as the current concentration of these elements in the oceans. By simple division, they can calculate the time it took to reach present levels, even accounting for sedimentation and dissipation. None of these elements give an age of the Earth even coming close to billion of years.[34]

• Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several "strata" of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them.[34] At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.[10]

Link (new window)


You're either the best troll I've ever seen, or the worst analyst in the (~1.5 million year long) history of mankind.
 
2009-03-26 11:44:25 PM  
ninjakirby: HAH YOU DOGMATIC FOOL YOU HAVE FINALLY REVEALED TO US THE RELIGION THAT IS DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. ONLY A PRIEST OF HIGH KNOWLEDGE ARCANA COULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THIS TRUTH SO QUICKLY.

NO ELFSTAR DON'T DO IT.

ninjakirby: This is my favorite panel from that tract:

www.chick.com

I mean, he's really, seriously, implying that spells in DnD are REAL MAGICAL SPELLS. And that's just farking hilarious.


Yeah. I mean, even IF there were spells which could really for reals affect people, in D&D it only says what the spells do, not how to cast them (aside from "you need sulfur and bat guano"). Even the Wizard's Spell Compendiums would be useless in a real-life situation.

I personally love that panel because it looks like Debbie's having a seizure or something. And her left eye has apparently migrated several inches down her face.
 
2009-03-26 11:45:06 PM  
Wow, they found 3 Texas GOPers who weren't fundies. They must not be intelligently designed.
 
2009-03-26 11:45:54 PM  
bartink: Perhaps your definition of agnosticism is different than mine.

Agnosticism: We cannot know if god exists.
(Gnosticism): We can know if god exists.
Atheism: Without theistic belief.
(Theism): Believing in god (God).

Agnosticism (without knowledge, from the greek) is an epistemological position - an answer to the question of whether or not we can know god exists. Atheism (without belief in God) is an ontological position - an answer to the question of whether god (God) does exist.

You can be any combination of one each of the epistemological terms and ontological terms.
 
2009-03-26 11:45:57 PM  
zeph`: zeph`: Agnosticism has literally nothing to do with the existence of god

Not literally nothing, but agnosticism isn't a position on existence, rather on knowledge. On the ability to know the existence of a certain kind of thing, I guess.


Are you formally agnostic about the Xenu and body thetans? Invisible unicorn at the center of the earth?

Do we really need to enumerate all the things we're agnostic about?

God is a creation of man, and easily so.
 
2009-03-26 11:46:29 PM  
bartink: Perhaps your definition of agnosticism is different than mine.

Unfortunately, your definition is neither practical nor proper. Agnosticism refers to what you know, and the absolute position of agnosticism is strictly that the knowledge of a question (generally the existence of deities) is unobtainable. Agnosticism with regards to you not knowing whether or not a deity exists is, in fact, atheism, since you lack a belief in a deity.
 
2009-03-26 11:47:17 PM  
zeph`: Then it was a soundness problem, not a validity problem.

If the premises are invalid, then the deduction is invalid. That's basic Aristotle.

zeph`: I don't disagree with you. At all. As a matter of fact, I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, pointing out logical fallacies is a lazy and generally unconvincing way of refuting argument, because they don't direct establish the falsity of the conclusion of the original argument. I don't deny that they're useful, just that they're overplayed - if you really wanted to demonstrate any understanding of the topic you'd attempt to show how not only is my logic awful, but my conclusion actively false.

If the original argument was a straight logical deduction, what other sort of attack is there apart from logical fallacies? The conclusion is actively false because the premises never got off the ground. This isn't advanced logic here.
 
2009-03-26 11:47:43 PM  
Renart: The devil is very real to Jack Chick, and is constantly coming up with new schemes (rock and roll, D&D, the fossil record) to ensnare us!

Well if there is one thing you can take away from any and all Jack Chick tracts is the belief "If I can imagine it, it must be real."


A Dark Evil Omen: I've killed people outright like that and seen other GMs do it as well, but it take serious player stupidity for that to happen, of the "I wedge myself in the giant roller trap trusting that my indestructible link mail will protect me!" variety.

I've only seen this happen twice; Once, we were clearing an incredibly difficult labyrinth on our way to kill Vecna (yes, that Vecna) and were confronted with the classic Black Hat/White Hat logic puzzle.

Rather than try and reason his way through it and conclude "I don't know", the second guy simply yelled out "BLACK!" and was immediately killed.

The other time it happened was when our group was (unbeknown to us) confronted with the Deck of Many Things, slightly modified, in the form of a gypsy doing Tarot.

One of our players recognized it as the DoMT, and did his best to meta-game and pull as many cards as he possibly could - which went amazingly well for a short period of time, netting him a couple levels in XP, a Sword of Three Wishes with all three wishes, and a few other things. Problem was, since it was the form of a gypsy doing tarot, he could just keep asking for more cards and finally the GM and the rest of the team just got pissed at his meta-gaming and when he finally drew a bad card his character was completely disintegrated and soul ripped apart and contained within some Lich's phylactery.

He apologized, re-rolled, and we later had to fight his old character in lich form.

Good times.
 
2009-03-26 11:48:58 PM  
zeph`: bartink: Perhaps your definition of agnosticism is different than mine.

Agnosticism: We cannot know if god exists.
(Gnosticism): We can know if god exists.
Atheism: Without theistic belief.
(Theism): Believing in god (God).

Agnosticism (without knowledge, from the greek) is an epistemological position - an answer to the question of whether or not we can know god exists. Atheism (without belief in God) is an ontological position - an answer to the question of whether god (God) does exist.

You can be any combination of one each of the epistemological terms and ontological terms.


Correct. I am am agnostic Atheist. Based on the evidence presented, there is no God, but who the fark knows for sure anyway.
 
2009-03-26 11:48:59 PM  
zeph`: Agnosticism: We cannot know if god exists.
(Gnosticism): We can know if god exists.
Atheism: Without theistic belief.
(Theism): Believing in god (God).

Agnosticism (without knowledge, from the greek) is an epistemological position - an answer to the question of whether or not we can know god exists. Atheism (without belief in God) is an ontological position - an answer to the question of whether god (God) does exist.

You can be any combination of one each of the epistemological terms and ontological terms.


Or the ordinary use of agnostic which simply states that someone has no position on whether there is a god or not, since they see no evidence of them.
 
2009-03-26 11:49:14 PM  
ProdigalSigh: It's like he draws what Glenn Beck sees.

heroeswiki.com
 
2009-03-26 11:49:58 PM  
This thread needs more Dino Jesus

i4.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 11:51:02 PM  
bartink: zeph`: Agnosticism: We cannot know if god exists.
(Gnosticism): We can know if god exists.
Atheism: Without theistic belief.
(Theism): Believing in god (God).

Agnosticism (without knowledge, from the greek) is an epistemological position - an answer to the question of whether or not we can know god exists. Atheism (without belief in God) is an ontological position - an answer to the question of whether god (God) does exist.

You can be any combination of one each of the epistemological terms and ontological terms.

Or the ordinary use of agnostic which simply states that someone has no position on whether there is a god or not, since they see no evidence of them.


What about apathetic agnosticism?
 
2009-03-26 11:51:07 PM  
Both theories are wrong. The Anunnaki have been controlling us for thousands of years. They use religion as a diversion to accomplish their goals.
 
2009-03-26 11:52:42 PM  
bartink: Or the ordinary use of agnostic which simply states that someone has no position on whether there is a god or not, since they see no evidence of them.

I despise the "ordinary use" of Agnostic. I am in IT and I hear all the damn time when referring to a new customer we are onboarding to manage: "we are agnostic about it" meaning "build whatever you want, we'll manage it" or whatever. In reality it's saying "we don't know" HATE HATE HATE.

It's like the redefining of "begging the question" HATE HATE HATE. Yes, someone pissed in my Cheerios this AM.
 
2009-03-26 11:53:18 PM  
MadCat221: What about apathetic agnosticism?

No one cares about that. But what do I know?
 
2009-03-26 11:53:34 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: I despise the "ordinary use" of Agnostic. I am in IT and I hear all the damn time when referring to a new customer we are onboarding to manage: "we are agnostic about it" meaning "build whatever you want, we'll manage it" or whatever.

People actually use that term in real conversation? wtf
 
2009-03-26 11:53:53 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: I despise the "ordinary use" of Agnostic. I am in IT and I hear all the damn time when referring to a new customer we are onboarding to manage: "we are agnostic about it" meaning "build whatever you want, we'll manage it" or whatever. In reality it's saying "we don't know" HATE HATE HATE.

It's like the redefining of "begging the question" HATE HATE HATE. Yes, someone pissed in my Cheerios this AM.


Which begs the question, are you atheist about agnosticism?
 
2009-03-26 11:53:56 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: If the premises are invalid, then the deduction is invalid. That's basic Aristotle.

Validity refers to the form of an argument. A valid argument is one in which the premises necessitate (logically entail) the conclusion, an invalid argument is one in which the conclusion is not necessitate (not logically entailed) by the conclusion. An argument's premises CAN NOT BE either valid or invalid - validity is not the kind of thing that applied to premises, only formal arguments. The word you're looking for is sound.

Soundness

Soundness refers to the content of an argument - namely the truth of its premises. A sound argument is an argument whose premises are true.

For the truth of the conclusion to be established, an argument must be valid (of proper logical form) and sound (having true premises) - only in this way can the truth of a conclsion be established.

Your terms are mixed up.
 
2009-03-26 11:53:59 PM  
I fail to see any weakness with the theory of evolution. I also fail to see any strengths with the theory of any religion.
 
2009-03-26 11:54:13 PM  
How can people not understand that CDP is always, always doing that tongue in cheek? For the love of god he has a cartoon mocking creationists on every single goddamn post! He uses well-refuted, stupid arguments that are the real creationist arguments stripped down to expose their corrupt hearts! He smells like brined cheese! I can tell from the pixels! I'm an incredibly gullible person and I saw what he was doing with his Boobies! I don't even consider it trolling! Why?!?

/pant pant pant
 
2009-03-26 11:55:03 PM  
The real bridge to atheism from agnosticism is the principle that if an extraordinary claim has no good evidential support, you are justified in believing that it is false. It's not all that arrogant, really, and doesn't require that you claim anything like comprehensive answers to all the great questions.

/Having said that, belief in evolution by natural selection does not really require atheism or even agnosticism. It only requires that one not take the Bible as literal truth. And that is so easily done (and generally required for coherence and consistency) that really, the point has been moot from the start.
 
2009-03-26 11:55:21 PM  
Obdicut: He smells like brined cheese! I can tell from the pixels! I'm an incredibly gullible person and I saw what he was doing with his Boobies! I don't even consider it trolling! Why?!?

Fr'ealz.
 
2009-03-26 11:55:30 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: Correct. I am am agnostic Atheist. Based on the evidence presented, there is no God, but who the fark knows for sure anyway.

I share your position.
 
2009-03-26 11:56:01 PM  
zeph`: Your terms are mixed up.

Sounds like your premise is that he cares.
 
2009-03-26 11:57:21 PM  
Robert1966: if an extraordinary claim has no good evidential support, you are justified in believing that it is false.

I'm curious, do you know what rational acceptance is? Beside that, have you ever even of thought of what it is to be justified in a belief? Name me three theories of justification.
 
2009-03-26 11:57:31 PM  
zeph`: SoxSweepAgain: Just stop

Dude - that's a valid argument. It's a case of modus tollens. Furthermore, I've stated multiple times that I agree with EVERY criticism leveled against my originally ridiculous arguments.

SoxSweepAgain: /Tautology, from a religious person.

I'm an agnostic athiest.

ninjakirby: Whats the dealio?

The tilde is not, but there's no use in trying to point out a flaw with that argument, it's correct. If anything implies a contradiction that thing is false. In this case, A implies the contradiction (B and not B), therefore A cannot be the case.


Your posts read as if you're posing as an agnostic atheist, and not actually an agnostic atheist.

If I'm wrong, sorry.
 
2009-03-26 11:57:53 PM  
Obdicut: How can people not understand that CDP is always, always doing that tongue in cheek? For the love of god he has a cartoon mocking creationists on every single goddamn post! He uses well-refuted, stupid arguments that are the real creationist arguments stripped down to expose their corrupt hearts! He smells like brined cheese! I can tell from the pixels! I'm an incredibly gullible person and I saw what he was doing with his Boobies! I don't even consider it trolling! Why?!?

/pant pant pant


Has it ever been hard to troll on FARK?
 
2009-03-26 11:58:06 PM  
bartink: Sounds like your premise is that he cares.

Hehe. If he wants to keep using the wrong logical terms when trying to make a point about logic, that's fine with me.
 
2009-03-26 11:59:34 PM  
SoxSweepAgain: If I'm wrong, sorry.

You're wrong. ninjakirby, mind backing a brother up in hurr?
 
2009-03-27 12:00:08 AM  
Vangor: ninjakirby: I mean, he's really, seriously, implying that spells in DnD are REAL MAGICAL SPELLS. And that's just farking hilarious.



I absolutely love this one. My nerdom practically rages at all of the problems associated with this, at least according to 3.5 rules. Not locating a trap doesn't automatically trigger it, DMs don't "declare" people dead, any person attached to their character probably has someone in party capable of resurrection or the ability to pay a priest elsewhere, poisons don't do damage, she'd get a reflex roll from any sort of poisonous trap anyway, yadda yadda yadda.


Nah, that tract goes back to the good old days of First Edition (I know, because someone gave it to me when I was playing AD&D). Poison was often a save-or-die kind of thing, and if you were playing an elf, that meant you were toast if you blew the save. Of course, the entire tract was a load of horse hockey, D&D didn't do anything like that to me.

/Gotta go
//Coven's getting ready to start
///Hope Dark Howard didn't get to the virgin already, or she won't be
//Satan eats Cheez Wizz!
 
2009-03-27 12:00:29 AM  
Bloody William: UnspokenVoice: So we can't teach the kids good science? Ya know, the whole looking for flaws and then returning with a new theory if applicable thing? Not that I care one way or the other but, really, being taught to look at theories scientifically instead of blind belief might actually have some benefits.

As soon as a better alternative is presented, we should be open to it.

Intelligent design is not a scientifically viable (or remotely legitimate) alternative, and the flaws in evolution as we currently know it, while present do not disprove the entire approach. Evolution is our best explanation for the development and diversity of organic life on this planet, and is backed up with far, far more evidence and research than ID.


What about inorganic life?
 
2009-03-27 12:01:06 AM  
Good job, Texas. You just made the Bevets bot asplode.
 
2009-03-27 12:02:15 AM  
God you religious types are farked up!

Watch THIS
 
2009-03-27 12:02:56 AM  
bartink: Or the ordinary use of agnostic which simply states that someone has no position on whether there is a god or not, since they see no evidence of them.

Having no position is still atheism as you do not believe in one or more deities. You're free to call yourself agnostic with regards to wanting no side in the conversation, but...this seems awkward considering your joining an internet conversation.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-27 12:03:18 AM  
shipofthesun: CDP: And this shouldn't be surprising, since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation.

One little statement, one tiny, little, made up, completely untrue statement, and everything else in your comment is rendered logically neutered. God is apparently not in the details.



In the polite world of geoscientific research, people can continue to discuss the relative merits of the models of northern underthrust and southern overthrust for explaining Ballard Down and continue to research how rock mechanics is compatible with the assumption that large-scale décollement and sliding supposedly occurred. But there are a bigger issues at stake:

Is the chalk at Ballard Down telling us that the geological column is of dubious value for unravelling earth's history, and at worst totally misleading?

Is chalk as a whole part of the Flood period?

Are the "Upper Cretaceous" sediments confirmation of the Flood?
Are the extinctions in the "Upper Cretaceous" caused by the Flood?

Decision-making

In an ideal world, we would like all evidence to point clearly in the same direction, but that ideal will never occur. For example, whilst we have shown that the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were possibly contemporaneous in certain geographical areas (rather than being separated by millions of years), we have not yet attempted to demonstrate that every part of the geological column was contemporaneous with some other part of the geological column. In areas of everyday life, and in industrial situations where investment plans have to be made, since these decisions have to be made in the absence of full understanding, human beings will adopt a process of looking for something "good enough" (Miller 1974) in order to move forward with their lives and businesses. Keen and Morton (1978) call the process "satisficing." Most of us come to Christ in the same way. He is seen as having key answers to life, but not everything is clear. From a human point of view there are always those nagging doubts which we live with. We see through a glass darkly, as the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:12 are translated in the King James (Authorized) Version.40 Personal devotion and evangelism would cease if doubts controlled us. Now faith is being sure . . . of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1), and surely that must apply to our view of geology, as well as our view of eternity.

Bringing matters to a head. When we have serious doubts, we are entitled to put out a "fleece" as did Gideon (Judges 6:37). In fact, we can do it twice (verse 39). God also tells Ahaz (Isaiah 7:11) to ask for a sign. Where the whole process can go horribly wrong is when we have the signs, but want more than God is prepared to give us. Jesus effectively said "enough is enough" to the Pharisees (Matthew 12:38++) when they wanted a miraculous sign. Herod had a similar hope for another sign (Luke 23:8), but Jesus did nothing. Similarly, secular studies on decision-making show (for example, Lee 1997 and Sivia 1996) that agreement on what will trigger the decision one way or the other must be made earlier in the search for relevant data and not constantly be postponed. Otherwise, the decision-making process degenerates into farce, with one or the other side claiming that there is a bit more evidence just around the corner which will finally clinch their preferred choice.

Implications for Decision-Making. If we had made the decision about which Flood model is tenable before understanding the revised interpretation of what was erroneously called the Tedbury "hardground," we would have had one more item on the list of factors that support the cachetical/Recolonization model, but it should not have been such a significant item that it would have swayed the decision in favour of believing in such a model. Because our understanding of geology is continuing to develop, there are going to be changes to our understanding of the relative importance of various features which contribute to our choice of Flood model.42 But if we already have a large number of features which support one of the models, then it is unlikely that we will have made a mistake. If you can trust the Bible, then you have to go for a visible evidence model of the Flood anyway.

Implications
A discussion on decision-making within a domestic, industrial and Christian context has been made. This effectively says that the story of chalk is complete-that chalk is a Flood deposit and its other proximal "Upper Cretaceous" deposits. The age of the chalk is less than 10,000 years.

The other rocks beneath the chalk (to basement) are therefore also Flood deposits and their ages must be less than 10,000 years.

Christians should be willing, rather than reluctant, to promote the principle that the bulk of the fossil-bearing rocks under our feet are a visible reminder of the awesomeness of the biblical Flood. But the judgment shown by God during that event followed warnings of what was going to happen and that the Ark would provide safety (2 Peter 2). The New Testament equivalent is that the sacrificial death of Christ provides a means for the atonement of sin.


Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 12:04:54 AM  
zeph`: Your terms are mixed up.

True, I did mix up my terms, but your argument is still actually invalid:

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.

4 does not follow from 3. If the premises are true, the conclusion can still be false, which is the definition of invalid.
 
2009-03-27 12:04:56 AM  
i132.photobucket.com

Sadly this little twit is probably not a troll.

Yeah let's teach the Nazi's side of The Holocaust,
The Slave owner's side of Human Slavery,
The Flat-Earther's side of the Earth's shape.

Also, did we land on the moon? Are women really
as intelligent as men. Are black people really people at all?
This is fun.

Let's unwind it all the way back to Aristotle. Couldn't the Earth
really be in the center of the universe?

You decide.
 
2009-03-27 12:05:02 AM  
TommyDeuce: Nah, that tract goes back to the good old days of First Edition

I know, but this is why I said, "at least according to 3.5 rules." My D&D nerd spots tons of errors in current play and I laugh hysterically.
 
2009-03-27 12:05:13 AM  
Why you all responding to CDP?

Is the image and text not juxtaposed enough for you?
 
2009-03-27 12:06:58 AM  
CDP: awesomeness

Had I written that article I would have replaced all instances of "awesomeness" with "tubularity". The Flood was tubular, dudes!
 
2009-03-27 12:07:18 AM  
Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a long-time curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories - notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution - be taught in science classes and covered in textbooks for those subjects.

Can't believe no one picked up on that yet...

I can't think of any valid scientific weakness of any valid scientific theory, including the theory of evolution (which, by the way, is no longer just Charles Darwin's), that should be taught to middle school or high school children. For one, sadly, there simply isn't enough time to go really go into the weaknesses of the scientific theories taught in class to the degree that better understanding can be achieved.

For another, to understand the weaknesses of any scientific theory requires a good deal of understanding about the theory in the first place. I can, and have (in my more evil moments), convinced a few people of the validity of phrenology (without using the word phrenology) over our current understanding of neuroscience simply by detailing what can be called weaknesses in our current understanding of nervous system functioning.

Thirdly, when it comes to the theories taught in middle and high school science classes... the weaknesses are too complex because those theories are so well established. Hell, most weaknesses of the theories that are taught to middle/high school children are too complex for college students to be taught it and walk away with having a better understanding of science (either in general, or specifically that field, or whatever). Most real hardcore deconstruction of scientific theories as sound as the ones we teach children is not done until graduate school... or if you're lucky your upper division science courses during your undergrad years. Seriously - what weaknesses of the theory of gravity or thermodynamics or germ theory of diseases or atomic theory should be taught in middle school or high school?

This is just more bullsh*t double-speak intended to confuse a scientifically illiterate population into supporting creationist propaganda.
 
2009-03-27 12:07:21 AM  
zeph`: heinekenftw: Um, given infinite time, no matter the odds, it will eventually happen.

1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.
2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.
3. A god will exist after a certain period of time.
4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.
5. A god exists currently.

YOU LOSE!


Consider two numbers a and b

a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2 - b^2 = a*b - b^2
( a + b )( a - b ) = b ( a - b )
a + b = b
b + b = b
2*b = b
2 = 1
 
2009-03-27 12:08:59 AM  
Vangor: Having no position is still atheism as you do not believe in one or more deities. You're free to call yourself agnostic with regards to wanting no side in the conversation, but...this seems awkward considering your joining an internet conversation.

I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion when I'm simply saying that I have no position on whether or not there is a God. That certainly doesn't stop me from posting on Fark.

This is from the dictionary:

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god


I'm agnostic as it is broadly known. I don't frankly care what the historical use of the term is. If I did, I'd go back to school and study that shiat, instead of the shiat I studied instead.
 
2009-03-27 12:09:36 AM  
Bucky Katt: Bloody William: UnspokenVoice: So we can't teach the kids good science? Ya know, the whole looking for flaws and then returning with a new theory if applicable thing? Not that I care one way or the other but, really, being taught to look at theories scientifically instead of blind belief might actually have some benefits.

As soon as a better alternative is presented, we should be open to it.

Intelligent design is not a scientifically viable (or remotely legitimate) alternative, and the flaws in evolution as we currently know it, while present do not disprove the entire approach. Evolution is our best explanation for the development and diversity of organic life on this planet, and is backed up with far, far more evidence and research than ID.

What about inorganic life?


img256.imageshack.us

Idunno, what about it?
 
2009-03-27 12:09:40 AM  
photos-c.ak.facebook.com

farm4.static.flickr.com

Woot! Good on you Tejas!
 
2009-03-27 12:10:22 AM  
do not question the weaknesses in the theory.

nothing to see here.

just move along.
 
2009-03-27 12:11:43 AM  
FTA: Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a long-time curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories - notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution - be taught in science classes and covered in textbooks for those subjects.

Read Karl Popper. Putting theories to the test, religious or not, is how we come to know stuff. What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?
 
2009-03-27 12:12:09 AM  
PC LOAD LETTER: 3. A god will exist after a certain period of time.
4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.



3 and 4 are premises, 4 is not a lemma. 5 is the conclusion entailed by premises 1-4.

Regardless, the argument was absurdly ad hoc to respond to the point the original poster made, and not in any way meant to be either sound OR valid OR serious. For what it's worth your longer response about the validity of the argument was excellent.
 
2009-03-27 12:13:04 AM  
Renart:

This one's good, too:



Help! I can't tell whether I'm an eighth-level cleric named "Elfstar" or a junior high school student!


I would recommend this optional commentary to accompany Mr. Chick's "Dark Dungeons" tract.
 
2009-03-27 12:13:21 AM  
Link (new window)
 
2009-03-27 12:14:18 AM  
Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory

For example?
 
2009-03-27 12:14:58 AM  
Oh.

My.

God.

This has been a truely epic Fark thread. I tittered with laughter almost the whole way through.
 
2009-03-27 12:15:29 AM  
Kubo: FTA: Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a long-time curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories - notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution - be taught in science classes and covered in textbooks for those subjects.

Read Karl Popper. Putting theories to the test, religious or not, is how we come to know stuff. What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?


Because they don't want to test theories in the pure sense. They have a very specific agenda that they're trying to Trojan-horse through with "teach the controversy"
 
2009-03-27 12:15:29 AM  
zeph`: SoxSweepAgain: If I'm wrong, sorry.

You're wrong. ninjakirby, mind backing a brother up in hurr?


Sure. I herebye stake my personal reputation to vouch for the fact that Zeph is actually an evil cyborg sent here to pose as a logician who toys with dated theological arguments in order to poke fun at, well everyone.

colon_pow: do not question the weaknesses in the theory.

nothing to see here.

just move along.


The new wording states "The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing"

What's your problem?
 
2009-03-27 12:16:05 AM  
bartink: This is from the dictionary

Dictionaries are common usage. As defined by most dictionaries, atheism is a doctrine, belief, system of beliefs, and more, which is absurdly false, but this is more common usage.

bartink: I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion when I'm simply saying that I have no position on whether or not there is a God.

However, more my point, you are an atheist because you lack a belief in a deity. I am not drawing a conclusion; this is your conclusion by stating no position on the existence of a deity. If your purpose is to avoid being inundated with discussion on why you don't believe by using a more approachable label, feel free, but don't delude yourself.
 
2009-03-27 12:16:22 AM  
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)?

Wanna try to teach Popper to a high schooler? Me neither. Its the same reason that theories are simply broadly explained. They are both over the head of high school students.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that not a single one of those idiots that voted for this measure could explain the weakness of any scientific theory, not even evolution.
 
2009-03-27 12:16:40 AM  
Religion is ST00PID Link (new window)
 
2009-03-27 12:16:53 AM  
Your puny brains are not adequate to comprehend the vastness of the universe! So, obviously, God did it.
 
2009-03-27 12:17:27 AM  
Kubo: is how we come to know stuff.

Not all stuff.

Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory

What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolutionary theory is that those weaknesses cannot properly be understood by the large majority of people without a specific education in either evolutionary biology, or alternatively, the philosophy of science (philosophy of biology in particular). For example, I think that the theory of developmental systems developed by Susan Oyama in The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution represents either a weakness, a problem, or an answered question of evolutionary biology - but in no way can developmental systems theory (or the competing theories) be taught at a high school level.
 
2009-03-27 12:17:45 AM  
Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?

"strengths and weaknesses" is a well known creationist code-word for long-debunked anti-evolution myths.
 
2009-03-27 12:17:45 AM  
LlamaFan:
Consider two numbers a and b

a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2 - b^2 = a*b - b^2
( a + b )( a - b ) = b ( a - b )
a + b = b
b + b = b
2*b = b
2 = 1


www.dodeca-t.com
 
2009-03-27 12:18:29 AM  
ninjakirby: I herebye stake my personal reputation to vouch for the fact that Zeph is actually an evil cyborg sent here to pose as a logician who toys with dated theological arguments in order to poke fun at, well everyone.

Not to self: be more specific in what you want people to vouch for.
 
2009-03-27 12:18:37 AM  
Vangor: Dictionaries are common usage. As defined by most dictionaries, atheism is a doctrine, belief, system of beliefs, and more, which is absurdly false, but this is more common usage.

Your on an internet cite with a secret section of links to Boobies. What level of usage do you really think is appropriate here?

Vangor: However, more my point, you are an atheist because you lack a belief in a deity. I am not drawing a conclusion; this is your conclusion by stating no position on the existence of a deity. If your purpose is to avoid being inundated with discussion on why you don't believe by using a more approachable label, feel free, but don't delude yourself.

I'm not deluding myself. I am an agnostic, as its commonly defined.

You just said you agree with that.
 
2009-03-27 12:19:40 AM  
LiebeMachtFrei: "strengths and weaknesses" is a well known creationist code-word for long-debunked anti-evolution myths.

It is, but not necessarily so.
 
2009-03-27 12:19:41 AM  
zeph`: Kubo: is how we come to know stuff.

Not all stuff.

Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory

What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolutionary theory is that those weaknesses cannot properly be understood by the large majority of people without a specific education in either evolutionary biology, or alternatively, the philosophy of science (philosophy of biology in particular). For example, I think that the theory of developmental systems developed by Susan Oyama in The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution represents either a weakness, a problem, or an answered question of evolutionary biology - but in no way can developmental systems theory (or the competing theories) be taught at a high school level.


Yep.

Shut up, or get book learning if you really wanna know.
 
2009-03-27 12:19:51 AM  
tinyarena: Couldn't the Earth
really be in the center of the universe?


Well, considering the edge of the universe is the same distance in any direction, Earth is the center of the universe.
 
2009-03-27 12:20:27 AM  
zeph`: 1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.

Demonstrate please.
 
2009-03-27 12:21:11 AM  
bartink: Wanna try to teach Popper to a high schooler?

Falsificationism is easily taught, especially in the context of the problems with something like Ayer's verificationism. I could do it in an hour.
 
2009-03-27 12:22:38 AM  
the_cnidarian:

Well, considering the edge of the visible universe is the same distance in any direction, Earth is the center of the visible universe.

fix0r3d... I think.
 
2009-03-27 12:22:51 AM  
zeph`: 3 and 4 are premises, 4 is not a lemma. 5 is the conclusion entailed by premises 1-4.

Regardless, the argument was absurdly ad hoc to respond to the point the original poster made, and not in any way meant to be either sound OR valid OR serious. For what it's worth your longer response about the validity of the argument was excellent.


I know you were joking, but I disagree that 4 is not a lemma, but whatev. Gnight. It was fun engaging in logical masturbation :)
 
2009-03-27 12:23:09 AM  
Kubo: Putting theories to the test, religious or not, is how we come to know stuff. What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?

Elementary, middle, and high school science/biology classes are not frankly where this belongs. The weaknesses do not remove anything from what should actually be taught in those courses and would require precious time on establishing scientific concepts, terminology, facts, etc., relevant to the greater understanding of the theory.

The more basic problem with the "weaknesses" argument is that to realistically understand those weaknesses in an established scientific theory requires a high degree of knowledge which simply can't be taught so quickly or so early. The weaknesses would need to be fundamental in the theory itself, in which case that theory shouldn't be taught; however, this is not the position used anymore.
 
2009-03-27 12:23:49 AM  
brynaldo: answered

Unanswered. And to be to fair it's developmental biology in general, not just evolutionary biology.
 
2009-03-27 12:25:01 AM  
0Icky0: Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory

For example?


Damned if I know. I'm just applying things I've learned in philosophy and epistemology to this arena. Just seems to me that both sides get butthurt when their stance is challeneged at any level.

And even if at the present time, there are no recognized weaknesses with evolution theory, that sure as hell doesn't mean we shouldn't trying to come up with a better, more educated theory. Maybe it'll be a form of current evolutionary theory, maybe not. My point is that it's stupid to sit back and assume we know all there is to know about a process, evolutionary or otherwise.

/Believes in God, believes in evolution
//wheeee free thinking
 
2009-03-27 12:25:11 AM  
Vangor: The more basic problem with the "weaknesses" argument is that to realistically understand those weaknesses in an established scientific theory requires a high degree of knowledge which simply can't be taught so quickly or so early.

I feel as if I recently read something very similar to this. Oh, that's right - I didn't read it, I posted it myself!

Either way, it's true. If you want to talk about the weaknesses of evolutionary theory get working on some advanced degrees.
 
2009-03-27 12:26:10 AM  
zeph`: Falsificationism is easily taught, especially in the context of the problems with something like Ayer's verificationism. I could do it in an hour.

At the expense of teaching what?

The dumb one's would never get it and proceed to entertain themselves by throwing shiat at the smart one's that may or may not give a fark about your lecture.

Trust me, I used to teach.

Teach the common theories and a basic understanding of scientific principles and some of their history. You know, Jeopardy stuff.

Remember, half of everyone is too dumb to be considered average.
 
2009-03-27 12:26:31 AM  
Would intelligent design be easier for the masses (sorry) to accept if it had a catchier name like SHAMWOW! or SillyPutty?
 
2009-03-27 12:27:08 AM  
neenerist: Demonstrate please.

HOWABOUT YOU PROVE ME WRONG OKAY? HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT?!
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-27 12:27:36 AM  
Sod A Dog: You're either the best troll I've ever seen, or the worst analyst in the (~1.5 million year long) history of mankind.

Creationists are often asked, "How is it possible for the earth's population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?" Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

One Plus One Equals Billions

Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That's 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.

Impact of the Flood

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.

From two people, created about 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world's population could easily have grown to the extent we now see it-over 6.5 billion.

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world's population would be a staggering figure-a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.

This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world's population could have grown to the extent we now see it-over 6.5 billion.

With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, "If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?" This is a question that evolution supporters must answer.

Link (new window)
i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 12:28:11 AM  
Wow, there were only about 50 comments in an evolution thread? Things sure have changed during my short hiatus from Fark...
"Displayed 50 of 369 comments"
Oh.
 
2009-03-27 12:28:20 AM  
zeph`: brynaldo: answered

Unanswered. And to be to fair it's developmental biology in general, not just evolutionary biology.


This is not the username you are looking for.

?
 
2009-03-27 12:28:35 AM  
Vangor:
The more basic problem with the "weaknesses" argument is that to realistically understand those weaknesses in an established scientific theory requires a high degree of knowledge which simply can't be taught so quickly or so early.


Solid point. Maybe I expect too much of high schoolers.
 
2009-03-27 12:29:37 AM  
bartink: You just said you agree with that.

No, I only agreed with your using this only under a certain circumstance. Entering into a conversation regarding belief in a deity and scientific theory, even if on a site with a section of tit links, wouldn't fall under that circumstance. Tell your devout, Catholic grandmother that you're agnostic, but when you're in a discussion about the proper terminology I think colloquial usage is gone; as with the term theory.

You seem concerned with the label of atheism despite this being exactly what you are, and this is what I see of most arguments from "agnostics"; they believe they'll be demonized.
 
2009-03-27 12:30:15 AM  
Your premise, you demonstrate.
 
2009-03-27 12:30:18 AM  
The Reptilians will destroy you
 
2009-03-27 12:30:42 AM  
LiebeMachtFrei: Kubo: What's wrong with talking about the weaknesses in evolution theory (religion notwithstanding)?

"strengths and weaknesses" is a well known creationist code-word for long-debunked anti-evolution myths.


For example:

Mercer is now arguing in favor of his amendment. He says that the word "weaknesses" has been good for Texas science education. He now is going through the history of the changes made to the science TEKS over three drafts. In some cases, S&W was changed to "strengths and limitations." He said he has received about 10,000 messages to keep S&W so he has no problem advocating it. He says we heard testifiers and scientists say there questions about evolution. These hundreds of scientists say there are weaknesses and disagreements about evolution. He says there used to be 700 but now 1000 scientists who signed the DI Darwinism statement that say there are problems, weaknesses, and controversies. He names these: the feathered dinosaur out of China, Haeckel's embryos, Piltdown Man, peppered moths, the Cambrian Explosion, microevolution and macroevolution, and similar things.


These ladies and gentlemen, are your weaknesses: Acheopteryx/Sinosauropteryx, old drawings that aren't part of any relevant curriculum, a single well known hoax, a valid and reproduced study on Moth populations, a highly complex upper-academia geology subject, and bullshiat semantics.

Any teacher without an ideological YEC agenda could cover these topics in twenty minutes, and probably do, when they come up (rarely). Those with an agenda, however, use them to teach bullshiat and force their ignorance onto children.

Asked if Freshwater ever questioned facts in the textbook, Nathan responded "Yes, because relative dates are not accurate." Pressed a little further, Nathan identified "Fossils and trees and stuff."

Asked about the use of "here!" in class, Nathan testified that it was used by students "when there was a date in the book we'd say 'here.' When the book said a fossil was 49 million years old we'd say 'here'."


That's the kind of teaching you get when you allow 'strengths and weaknesses' language in your standards. Sad, but true.
 
2009-03-27 12:32:02 AM  
zeph`: I feel as if I recently read something very similar to this. Oh, that's right - I didn't read it, I posted it myself!

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


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


img401.imageshack.usimg401.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-27 12:34:05 AM  
zeph`: Falsificationism is easily taught, especially in the context of the problems with something like Ayer's verificationism. I could do it in an hour.

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

Does this mean that I have to start going to church now? GODDAMMIT!
 
2009-03-27 12:35:41 AM  
Kubo: Damned if I know. I'm just applying things I've learned in philosophy and epistemology to this arena. Just seems to me that both sides get butthurt when their stance is challeneged at any level.

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

Hehe, just joking anyhow - it's a common comment when someone mentions the words "weakness" and "evolution". What's the royalty for fark.com post use, anyways?
 
2009-03-27 12:37:00 AM  
Vangor: No, I only agreed with your using this only under a certain circumstance. Entering into a conversation regarding belief in a deity and scientific theory, even if on a site with a section of tit links, wouldn't fall under that circumstance. Tell your devout, Catholic grandmother that you're agnostic, but when you're in a discussion about the proper terminology I think colloquial usage is gone; as with the term theory.

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

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

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

I'm going to send you my MA thesis if/once it's finished. Our current (mistake) conception of the function of education wouldn't either allow or encourage something like that - my conception of the function of education (the one I plan on writing about) actively entails that (among other things).
 
2009-03-27 12:38:31 AM  
0Icky0: Kubo: Damned if I know. I'm just applying things I've learned in philosophy and epistemology to this arena. Just seems to me that both sides get butthurt when their stance is challeneged at any level.

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


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

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

zeph`: zeph`: mistakefark me - mistaken.

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

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


i2.photobucket.comrobola.files.wordpress.comi2.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 12:40:41 AM  
ninjakirby: He says there used to be 700 but now 1000 scientists who signed the DI Darwinism statement that say there are problems, weaknesses, and controversies.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

That's a product of our flawed system. There's nothing physiologically preventing a student of high school age from being able to apprehend fairly advanced concepts. A better education from the ground up would produce students better able to cope with more advanced concepts on average and earlier.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-27 12:44:16 AM  
tinyarena: Sadly this little twit is probably not a troll.

Yeah let's teach the Nazi's side of The Holocaust,
The Slave owner's side of Human Slavery,
The Flat-Earther's side of the Earth's shape.

Also, did we land on the moon? Are women really
as intelligent as men. Are black people really people at all?
This is fun.

Let's unwind it all the way back to Aristotle. Couldn't the Earth
really be in the center of the universe?

You decide.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link (new window)

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

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

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

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

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

What a load of crap.

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

Define liberal.

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

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

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

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

5: God is complex.
6: Who/What Designed God?


SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

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

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

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


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

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

zeph`: ninjakirby: reason

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


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

*if you ignore the vomit and bums.
 
2009-03-27 12:50:01 AM  
CDP: Sod A Dog: You're either the best troll I've ever seen, or the worst analyst in the (~1.5 million year long) history of mankind.

Creationists are often asked, "How is it possible for the earth's population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?" Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

One Plus One Equals Billions

Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That's 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.

Impact of the Flood

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.

From two people, created about 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world's population could easily have grown to the extent we now see it-over 6.5 billion.

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world's population would be a staggering figure-a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.

This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world's population could have grown to the extent we now see it-over 6.5 billion.

With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, "If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?" This is a question that evolution supporters must answer.

Link (new window)


CDP's profile>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Research says otherwise.

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

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

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

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

bartink: parents genetics.

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

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

Bell curve disagrees.

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

Research says otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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


I see now that my work here is done.

Go in peace my child

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

rAmen

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

Now I've been caught misusing terms. Replace thread with discussion or conversation so that it can be applied properly.
 
2009-03-27 01:00:27 AM  
Seriously, I'm evolving right now! My kids are going to be awesome.
 
2009-03-27 01:03:05 AM  
bartink: Have you ever been an actual teacher?

I've taught things to people in schools of sorts. I'm not a teacher though, nor have I ever officially been one. My concern is with philosophy of education.

Honestly, the points you're making are extremely limited in that they're the product of experience with people who have been treated poorly throughout their educations. The theory and philosophy behind education, if properly enacted, would produce students completely unrecognizable to you. Systematic changes would nullify most of you (somewhat justifiable) conceptions of what students are and are not capable of.
 
2009-03-27 01:03:28 AM  
OMFG!!!

The thread is still alive!!???
 
2009-03-27 01:06:20 AM  
img12.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-27 01:07:29 AM  
bartink: Although atheists believe that there isn't a God. At least in common usage. I simply don't know.

I lack a belief in a deity; nothing active. This is mostly my point:

Consider, do you believe unicorns exist? If not, do you then believe unicorns do not exist? You'd probably say yes, because there are no implications.

Consider now, does an infant believe god exists? If not, do you then believe god does not exist? This has more implications in our world, and you'd hesitate strongly to say the child has an active disbelief. The child is, essentially, an atheist.
 
2009-03-27 01:08:31 AM  
zeph`: "On what teachers make" is among the best videos on YouTube.

I get really sick of hearing what those that have never taught think is the solution to teaching kids. I've been there. I've saved kids (their words). I've taught kids that couldn't read a syllable at age 12 to read. I'm all about challenging kids. But I'm about teaching them what they are ready to learn and not arrogantly assuming that because I understood something in high school and felt it was useful for me personally that all children should get that instruction. I've seen what happens to a group of kids that get what some bright-eyed, well meaning teacher thought they needed when they didn't have the basics. I've actually taught. You haven't.

If you think its so simple with regular kids, go do it. But spare me your lectures. Its not your field. I don't care what some cherry-picked research here or there says. I've actually been in the trenches and I was very good at what I did.

Your a noob. Stick to arguing about arguing.
 
2009-03-27 01:10:45 AM  
zeph`: Honestly, the points you're making are extremely limited in that they're the product of experience with people who have been treated poorly throughout their educations. The theory and philosophy behind education, if properly enacted, would produce students completely unrecognizable to you. Systematic changes would nullify most of you (somewhat justifiable) conceptions of what students are and are not capable of.

I taught them the way they came to me. I didn't dwell in some fantasy of what might or could be if I was God and could design some system. I didn't have that luxury. I had homework to grade and a class of kids looking at me expecting to teach them something.

I didn't deal in the philosophical. I dealt with the actual child sitting in a chair in front of me.
 
2009-03-27 01:10:49 AM  
bartink: Your a noob. Stick to arguing about arguing.

Your attitude is the problem with our education system.
 
2009-03-27 01:11:08 AM  
CDP: In the name of the Pasta, The Sauce, and The Garlic Toast

*thunderous applause*
 
2009-03-27 01:12:24 AM  
bartink: solution to teaching kids

And regardless, I don't care about "teaching kids" - I care about what ought to be taught. What we teach is, largely, fine - what we don't teach is killing us.
 
2009-03-27 01:13:03 AM  
Do these creationism people ever win? I can see why people get pissed off about creationism taught as science, but this "war on science" hysteria is way out of proportion to the non-threat these creationism people represent.

Sometimes I wonder if the two sides are competing for martyrdom status. NO YOU'RE TRYING TO DESTROY ME!! NO YOU!!!
 
2009-03-27 01:14:02 AM  
bartink: I didn't deal in the philosophical.

That's fine, and you shouldn't. You're obviously both ill-equipped and in a poor position to do so. You teach and leave the thinking about the ways in which education can be improved up to the academics.
 
2009-03-27 01:20:43 AM  
paygun: Do these creationism people ever win?

I don't think so. The kids who want to learn science will learn it, and those that don't, do not care either way.
 
2009-03-27 01:21:55 AM  
zeph`: Your attitude is the problem with our education system.

I'm what was right about the system. Ask the children that I taught. They will tell you. I took kids that couldn't read at all and were ignored by that system you despise and humiliated and treated like shiat and taught them what they thought they were too dumb to do: read. Go ask those kids about me.

Maybe I can ask the kids you've taught to read. Oh wait, you haven't. Spare me your armchair philosophizing. You don't know me and you have never taught. Everything you are talking about is theoretical.

You post a clip on youtube of a man who says things I mostly agree with. But before you go worship him, remember what kind of kids that man taught. He taught at a prep school and some kids in Cape frkking Cod. Gimme a break.

Don't assume that everyone comes out of the womb tabla rosa ready to become a genius. Don't assume that there is some system that can be magically created that can turn a room temp IQ into a philosopher.

You are assuming that every kid can do these things because you can. I got news for you. You are exceptional. You are in a thread with some exceptional minds. Hell, I've got a genius IQ and I'd bet money you are smarter than me. But you don't know what you are talking about here. I do. I've been there.

Half of everyone is too stupid to be considered average. Many are born that way. All of them that get criticized too much when they are little and don't get read to are basically screwed. I got research on that. Want it?
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-27 01:23:49 AM  
eggrolls: CDP's profile>

Ah. Here we see the product of a Texas education.


Why yes it is...

It is painfully obvious how well that Boston education has worked out for you.

I think you should pay more attention to the graphics next time and possibly do a little research on Poe's Law

Link (new window)

You think it is just a coincidence that I live in Dallas and this thread is linked to the Dallas News?

It has been fun boys...

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 01:25:02 AM  
CDP: It has been fun boys...

I'll bet it was.

Going home to clean your catch?
 
2009-03-27 01:26:27 AM  
paygun: Sometimes I wonder if the two sides are competing for martyrdom status.

These creationist fascists home-school their own kids and sit in disproportionate numbers on the boards of public schools and try to "stupidify" the rest of the population.
They are a real threat to science education. Texas/Dallas is a great example of this. They must be removed.
 
2009-03-27 01:26:54 AM  
Bah, I was trying to do zeph's thing in predicate logic, but it's been too long since I've played with it.

I ran into trouble trying to define a first cause.

If "a" has a cause, that means there exists something which caused a. So, what,
Ax [HasCause(x) -> Ey Caused(y,x)]?
Unless I'm on crack, that reads "for all x, if x has a cause, there exists a y which caused x".
And therefore,
AyAx [Caused(y,x) -> IsCause(y)]
For all x and y, if y caused x, y is a cause.

But then a first cause obviously
Ey [IsCause(y) & ~HasCause(y)]
There exists a y such that y is a cause and y does not have a cause.

Here the problem becomes pretty obvious. Earlier, it was stated that for all things, if it exists, it either was caused or was not, and nothing was not caused. So there is no y such that it both is a cause and does not have a cause, the argument is invalid.

But because I can't remember all the rules to do a formal derivation (and it's much longer than the ones I did a year ago), and strangely the internet has very little in the way of good explanations.

Anyone who does this stuff for a living and not just for fun want to fix me?
 
2009-03-27 01:27:26 AM  
whidbey: CDP: It has been fun boys...

I'll bet it was.

Going home to clean your catch?


It was a truly awesome haul, he's probably violating all sorts of harvest limits.

What are the catch limits on trollbait? Do you need a permit?
 
2009-03-27 01:27:45 AM  
Pharque-it: These creationist fascists home-school their own kids and sit in disproportionate numbers on the boards of public schools and try to "stupidify" the rest of the population.
They are a real threat to science education. Texas/Dallas is a great example of this. They must be removed.


Sorry, I just don't see it as any threat if they just keep losing.
 
2009-03-27 01:28:09 AM  
bartink: I've actually been in the trenches and I was very good at what I did.

Your premise seems to be that education should be kept to an average standard in order to not dissuade children with "poor genetics" from learning. While I agree basic education should not be discouraging, there is a significant, symptomatic failure with the basic ways children are taught. Would you not agree? This, I believe, is zeph`'s main point.
 
2009-03-27 01:32:17 AM  
I have to admit that I miss the gut reaction / original content that CDP dished out when the 'vets would copy and paste his stuff.

Guess this will have to do until that summon card starts working again.
 
2009-03-27 01:34:06 AM  
paygun: Sorry, I just don't see it as any threat if they just keep losing.

I do not see 7-7 as a win. It is like this in a lot of places here in TX. They are losing ground, but too slow!

CDP: Extremely well played! You got my bloodpressure up quite a bit!
 
2009-03-27 01:34:48 AM  
Vangor: Your premise seems to be that education should be kept to an average standard in order to not dissuade children with "poor genetics" from learning. While I agree basic education should not be discouraging, there is a significant, symptomatic failure with the basic ways children are taught. Would you not agree? This, I believe, is zeph`'s main point.

No, my point is that people are wired differently. Some aren't that bright, no matter what their early upbringing. Some just aren't going to get something like college level logic. I'm for having special classes to teach those kids what he suggests. But he wants to teach Ayers Verificationism and thinks given an hour he can take a typical class and teach it to them. And he thinks that should be done to every student.

Nonsense.

We got lots of problems in education. Teaching the controversy isn't one of them. And neither is a lack of Ayers Verificationism.

You are talking to someone that pushed kids harder than those kids thought was possible. But if you don't recognize that there are some genetic differences between bright people like you, me, and him and most children you are simply being narcissistic.
 
2009-03-27 01:35:50 AM  
Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a longtime curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories - notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution - be covered in science classes and textbooks for those subjects...

"I don't see how we can say there is no disagreement about evolution. There is disagreement," said Mercer, taking issue with science teachers and academics who told the board that the theory of evolution is universally accepted in the scientific community. He cited a document by hundreds of scientists questioning some of Darwin's tenets.

He also charged that evolution advocates have a history of falsifying evidence and drawing erroneous conclusions to support their position.


For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. ~ Charles Darwin

When I was in Cambridge one of my supervisors often advised us to 'beware the sound of one hand clapping' which is a way of saying if there is an argument on one side, there is bound to be an argument on the other. And what I've found in studying the structure of the argument in the Origin of Species is that for every evidence based argument for one of Darwin's two key propositions there is an evidence based counter argument. ~ Stephen Meyer
 
2009-03-27 01:36:27 AM  
CDP: Sod A Dog: CDP: Well, you sold me. Those crazy evolutionists have been wrong the whole time!

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

I see now that my work here is done.

Go in peace my child

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

rAmen

Dude,
YOUR KUNG FU IS GREATEST!!!

Epic thread, I swear it was like watching a dozen guys with wiffle bats try to take down THIS GUY...
i36.photobucket.com
In a farking duel to the death.

/going to be hard to sleep with all this giggling.
 
2009-03-27 01:36:58 AM  
Vangor: While I agree basic education should not be discouraging, there is a significant, symptomatic failure with the basic ways children are taught. Would you not agree? This, I believe, is zeph`'s main point.

Yeah I do. I don't think he made his point that broadly. I personally think teachers should be paid more and be easier to fire. No tenure. Ever.

I have a long list of things I think need to be changed.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't what's wrong with teaching, however.

Its late. Goodnight.
 
2009-03-27 01:37:20 AM  
...somebody changed the batteries in that summon card, apparently.

Dammit, I'm out of popcorn.
 
2009-03-27 01:37:44 AM  
LlamaFan:
Consider two numbers a and b

a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2 - b^2 = a*b - b^2
( a + b )( a - b ) = b ( a - b )
a + b = b


BZZT, wrong. Divide by zero.
 
2009-03-27 01:42:32 AM  
CDP: Sod A Dog: CDP: Well, you sold me. Those crazy evolutionists have been wrong the whole time!

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

I see now that my work here is done.

Go in peace my child

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

rAmen


Well done, sir. Well farking done, indeed.
 
2009-03-27 01:44:43 AM  
Bevets:

You are late with your out-of-context quotes. Do some more quote-mining!
 
2009-03-27 01:46:36 AM  
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?
 
2009-03-27 01:46:58 AM  
bartink: You're a noob. Stick to arguing about arguing.

I'm sure you did VERY well in teaching kids how to read...
You know how many teachers had to teach a kid something basic? ALL OF THEM! You are not a veteran of the imaginary education war in your head. You sound just like the sort of pseudo-philanthropist that not only brings down the progress of education, but all public works. You're not supposed to teach kids to prove a point. You're not supposed to enlighten youngsters with your vastly overinflated ego. You, sir, are an absolutely horrible human being.
 
2009-03-27 01:49:38 AM  
"He also charged that evolution advocates have a history of falsifying evidence and drawing erroneous conclusions to support their position. "

I love it. There's always a line like this in these sort of stories.
 
2009-03-27 01:53:45 AM  
Bevets: For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. ~ Charles Darwin

Aren't you tired of posting the same old quotes that you've mined and that keep getting put back into context by others?

A conversation about the issue is one thing, and you're reputedly capable of having them, but that's not a conversation, this is going out and digging up the skeleton of your horse that your friends buried for you and hitching it to your wagon.

The Darwin quote, in full context:
"My work is now (1859) nearly finished; but as it will take me many more years to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this Abstract. I have more especially been induced to do this, as Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the natural history of the Malay Archipelago, has arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions that I have on the origin of species. In 1858 he sent me a memoir on this subject, with a request that I would forward it to Sir Charles Lyell, who sent it to the Linnean Society, and it is published in the third volume of the Journal of that Society. Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who both knew of my work-the latter having read my sketch of 1844-honoured me by thinking it advisable to publish, with Mr. Wallace's excellent memoir, some brief extracts from my manuscripts.

This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."

He is, in fact, complaining that he was hurried to publish by the fear that he would die before he did so, and didn't have the time or the space to publish all of his data and sources. A few paragraphs later in the introduction (in the important one - the conclusion), he says this:

"Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained-namely, that each species has been independently created-is erroneous."

Quote mining in this fashion does you absolutely no favours. It's an extremely lazy form of argument, and an intellectually dishonest one at that.
 
2009-03-27 01:53:58 AM  
The ARK washes up on the mountain and releases all of the animal pairs.

The predators are hungry. Chomp chomp chomp, no more tasty herbivores. The ones that escape, well the only plants that exist in the world now are trees and plants that survive being submerged in salt water for 40 days. The herbivores starve. All of the worms have drowned or been eaten by fish and birds after being under an planet-ocean for 40 days (oh and a hit, worms DO NOT LIKE SALT WATER).

What about seeds regrowing the plants drowned in ocean water? Well good luck with that. The ground is totally muddy and soaked with salty ocean brine which will not wash away in under 180 days even with very heavy rain. Hope the surviving animal populations love salt water to drink, because that's pretty much all there is to drink for hundreds of miles all around in a desert area (you remember, the Arab lands, the big-ass desert). Oh sure, there will be plenty of dead water-starved fish for the scavengers which survived in great numbers in the air or are amphibious or are swimming snakes. Great eating if you're a crow or a vulture or a swimming snake or a insect.

Did I overlook insects? Well look no further given a worldwide feast of rotting fish and predator carcasses to lay eggs in. Lots of insects have an underwater larval stage and they'd survive a mere 40 day submersion.

Thank you God for the worldwide flood that drowned 99.9% of your sucky creations aside from a small human family and the now mostly-extinct (given that once off the Ark, the animals have almost no suitable food to eat) paired-off sampling of the animal populations.

Let's look at this world. It is going to be chock full of rotting fish, dead-out-of-water sea life, parasites, flies, mosquitoes, swimming snakes, vultures, crows, hawks, and all in a sandy desert area that has been soaked to the permafrost depth with salt water throughout the entire world which leaves the entire surface soils sparkly white like the Salt Flats of Utah.

Did I mention that the representative sample of the human population deemed "Worthy of Saving" by God is pretty tiny? "Noah was instructed, by God, to take aboard the Ark his wife, his three sons and their wives, male and female pairs of all the "unclean" kinds of creatures, seven (or seven pairs) each of the "clean" kinds, and enough food and supplies for everyone (Gen. 6:18-7:3; 7:6, 11)." Tally that up and you get 8 humans (unless the kids had multiple wives). Obviously the wives were all multi-racial (Noah + wife were Arabic Jews, one son's wife would have to be Asian, another son's wife would be Hispanic, another son's wife would be Umber-skinned, another would be... oops ran out of women! Golly how'd that happen? Maybe there was a European pale-skinned woman there and the "Sin of Ham" made all of the Umber-skinned chicks as the Bible claims?)

See how simple it all is?

Good thing Noah's family endured the daily mile-high tidal waves with an ocean-covered world allowing an orbiting moon to generate a continual tidal wash (take a cup of water, move the cup in circles to watch the water swirl up the sides of the glass, now imagine a never-ending tidal wash with nothing to slow it down over a globe to finish the thought).

// Why ever could we doubt the claims of the Intelligent Design crowds?
 
2009-03-27 01:54:40 AM  
A Dark Evil Omen: Do you need a permit?

Not if you use dogshiat for bait.
 
2009-03-27 01:55:12 AM  
UltimaCS: I'm sure you did VERY well in teaching kids how to read...
You know how many teachers had to teach a kid something basic? ALL OF THEM! You are not a veteran of the imaginary education war in your head. You sound just like the sort of pseudo-philanthropist that not only brings down the progress of education, but all public works. You're not supposed to teach kids to prove a point. You're not supposed to enlighten youngsters with your vastly overinflated ego. You, sir, are an absolutely horrible human being.


And you don't know me. I didn't teach regular kids to read. I taught dyslexics who were way behind grade level. I type fast and don't care except what spell check catches.

Ever taught? Get after it and let me know how you do. Better yet, go teach at my friends school. He heard a ruckus outside his class and went to investigate. There was a student on the ground dead with a knife sticking out of her head, her blood pooling around her lifeless body. Teach the kids of that class some advanced college theory. Good luck with that. Go teach that class of forty traumatized kids half of which have parents that don't speak English.

Your a farking idiot on a message board who doesn't know shiat about what I'm talking about except on a purely theoretical level. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2009-03-27 01:55:50 AM  
Phone_Answering_Monkey: "He also charged that evolution advocates have a history of falsifying evidence and drawing erroneous conclusions to support their position. "

Aren't they great liars those creationist supporters?
 
2009-03-27 01:56:46 AM  
i486.photobucket.com
Ugh.
 
2009-03-27 01:57:31 AM  
Jesus is fundie's dinosaurs.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-27 01:57:58 AM  
whidbey: CDP: It has been fun boys...

I'll bet it was.

Going home to clean your catch?


Nope not yet, actually the g/f is requesting a little high protein tonsil wash. ;-)
 
2009-03-27 01:59:50 AM  
Pharque-it: Phone_Answering_Monkey: "He also charged that evolution advocates have a history of falsifying evidence and drawing erroneous conclusions to support their position. "

Aren't they great liars those creationist supporters?


I don't know if they're liars, just a little deluded and intellectually lazy. How can he make a statement like that without noticing how it could be so easily used to assail his own position? I mean...the RELIGIOUS community never does things like that? Get this in politics too.
 
2009-03-27 01:59:54 AM  
zeph`: 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?


Agreed. Sorry I went off on you. You didn't deserve a lot of what I said. I'm passionate about this stuff.

I think that some triage is also in order. I think that you save the one's you can and intervene early in all future generations. If we can get parents to quit beating their kids, criticizing them too much, and make sure they hear a few million words by age four, a lot of this other stuff that you want is possible.

If we don't, we are paying teachers nearly nothing to babysit people that will be lucky to stay out of jail and no education program can fix it.
 
2009-03-27 02:01:56 AM  
CDP: i132.photobucket.com

I love how they just never look.
 
2009-03-27 02:03:32 AM  
paygun: Sorry, I just don't see it as any threat if they just keep losing.

Have you not considered that they keep losing because they are fought by people who consider them a threat?
 
2009-03-27 02:04:15 AM  
CDP: Nope not yet, actually the g/f is requesting a little high protein tonsil wash. ;-)

Heh... after the lies you've told here tonight, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to trust anything you have to say ever again.

If it is true, however, I suspect that it's fairly well-deserved. All things considered, you've been having a rather successful evening, haven't you?
 
2009-03-27 02:04:19 AM  
bartink, you manage to make yourself sound more like an overinflated war veteran every time you speak. But you're not; you're a farking teacher. I'm trying my best not to belittle your occupation or accomplishments, but when you try to graphically brag about a tragic scene that your friend came across at school, that's drawing the line pretty far out there. I'm sure you feel entitled toward having a higher opinion than everyone in this board because you're apparently the only teacher on this board AND the only person who has ever had to deal with the education system. I'm sorry for the great weight you carry, and I still hope that you continue educating kids to the best of your ability even when it's only to shine your own pole, but grow the fark up.
 
2009-03-27 02:07:53 AM  
For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. ~ Charles Darwin

When I was in Cambridge one of my supervisors often advised us to 'beware the sound of one hand clapping' which is a way of saying if there is an argument on one side, there is bound to be an argument on the other. And what I've found in studying the structure of the argument in the Origin of Species is that for every evidence based argument for one of Darwin's two key propositions there is an evidence based counter argument. ~ Stephen Meyer


DemonEater:

He is, in fact, complaining that he was hurried to publish by the fear that he would die before he did so, and didn't have the time or the space to publish all of his data and sources.

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"?
 
2009-03-27 02:08:14 AM  
UltimaCS: bartink, you manage to make yourself sound more like an overinflated war veteran every time you speak. But you're not; you're a farking teacher. I'm trying my best not to belittle your occupation or accomplishments, but when you try to graphically brag about a tragic scene that your friend came across at school, that's drawing the line pretty far out there. I'm sure you feel entitled toward having a higher opinion than everyone in this board because you're apparently the only teacher on this board AND the only person who has ever had to deal with the education system. I'm sorry for the great weight you carry, and I still hope that you continue educating kids to the best of your ability even when it's only to shine your own pole, but grow the fark up.

I don't really care what you think. You don't know me. I wasn't talking to you. But you say I'm a horrible person who only does that to "shine my own pole". How would you know that exactly?

I guess that makes you some kind of reasonable genius, eh?
 
2009-03-27 02:10:03 AM  
Gridlock: The predators are hungry. Chomp chomp chomp, no more tasty herbivores.

that's some funny shiat
 
2009-03-27 02:13:19 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 02:15:58 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 02:17:18 AM  
This country is so pathetic. I'm thinking of moving to Europe.

Pathetic.
 
2009-03-27 02:18:07 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 02:19:34 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 02:19:41 AM  
Took you long enough to get in here Bevets!

/Pulls up a chair and throws some popcorn in the microwave
 
2009-03-27 02:21:14 AM  
bravochimp: ...somebody changed the batteries in that summon card, apparently.

img291.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-27 02:23:03 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 02:28:52 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 02:29:21 AM  
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?
 
2009-03-27 02:29:24 AM  
i272.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-27 02:30:30 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 02:36:06 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 02:36:52 AM  
Take that cretards:

www.tvgasm.com
 
2009-03-27 02:38:43 AM  
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?
 
2009-03-27 02:42:30 AM  
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?
 
2009-03-27 02:43:19 AM  
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?
 
2009-03-27 02:51:32 AM  
Even IF the cretards were correct in their deliberate attempts to obfuscate the truth, they STILL haven't argued that any particular religion's version of their creator is the same 'guy' (for lack of a better word)
 
2009-03-27 02:51:40 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 02:56:21 AM  
Progress!
i123.photobucket.com

/Texan
//eats Creationists for breakfast (taste like fruit loops)
 
2009-03-27 02:57:35 AM  
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?

i132.photobucket.com
i132.photobucket.com
i132.photobucket.com
i132.photobucket.com
i132.photobucket.com
i132.photobucket.com
i132.photobucket.com
i132.photobucket.com
i132.photobucket.com

Did you get a Humerectomy or something?
 
2009-03-27 03:07:05 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 03:14:28 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 03:15:46 AM  
ninjakirby:

On further review, there appears to be at least one gif I hadn't seen, so there's that.
 
2009-03-27 03:17:32 AM  
TopoGigo: Besides, these would be the "smiley" exception in Poe's Law.

See my earlier commentary regarding Poe's Law.
 
2009-03-27 03:19:43 AM  
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?
 
2009-03-27 03:21:29 AM  
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
 
2009-03-27 03:21:59 AM  
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.
 
2009-03-27 03:25:39 AM  
ninjakirby:

OK, now you're just farking with me.
 
2009-03-27 03:29:02 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 03:41:13 AM  
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.
 
2009-03-27 04:52:35 AM  
CDP

You and your cr@ppy TL;DR posts....

Please.

Just frakking stop it.

icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-03-27 05:13:41 AM  
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
 
2009-03-27 05:42:37 AM