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.

(Slate)   A half-naked witch doctor is why creationism is still being taught in Louisiana schools. No, really   (slate.com) divider line 379
    More: Stupid, Education Act, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Bobby Jindal  
•       •       •

9008 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2013 at 4:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



379 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-05 03:16:51 PM  
Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.
 
2013-05-05 03:17:16 PM  
Bobby Jindal weeps for.....Bobby Jindal.
 
2013-05-05 04:03:14 PM  
images4.wikia.nocookie.net

"My work is done, thanks to Da Jindal! MWAHAHAHAHA!"
 
2013-05-05 04:04:56 PM  
Is this a race to the bottom with Kansas?
 
2013-05-05 04:10:33 PM  
Sometimes I am ashamed of my country.
 
2013-05-05 04:13:04 PM  

Apos: [images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 725x408]

"My work is done, thanks to Da Jindal! MWAHAHAHAHA!"


Time for some un-cola.
 
2013-05-05 04:13:26 PM  
Did they put the lime in the coconut?
 
2013-05-05 04:15:12 PM  
So Guillory says it's ok to teach Islam in schools as science?
 
2013-05-05 04:16:41 PM  
The law they are trying to repeal states that: "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?
 
2013-05-05 04:20:44 PM  

SkinnyHead: What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?


Considering we're talking about religious people, yes.
 
2013-05-05 04:20:46 PM  
I'm surprised Slate admitted Sen. Guillory is a Democrat.
 
2013-05-05 04:21:22 PM  

Fart_Machine: Is this a race to the bottom with Kansas?


God, I hope not. If Brownbackistan sinks any further, they'll plummet to the bottom of the ocean.
 
2013-05-05 04:21:50 PM  
I was hoping for half-naked witches and the physician who treats them.
 
2013-05-05 04:24:06 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.


bing bang
walla walla

they are going about it the wrong way
(seriously)

use this ill written junk
to "teach the controversy"   of say
dianetics
voo doo (hey we already got one convert)
kama sutra
the invisible flying spegetti monster

then after that gets outrage
point at those politico's as having brought in those "false religions" on purpose
 
2013-05-05 04:27:21 PM  

BitwiseShift: I was hoping for half-naked witches and the physician who treats them.


img707.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-05 04:33:44 PM  

SkinnyHead: evolution


Settled. No controversy.

the origins of life

Settled. No controversy.

global warming

Developing, but as far as climate scientists are concerned, not very controversial. See about a thousand previous Fark threads.

...and human cloning.

That one would be an interesting topic of discussion for an ethics class.
 
2013-05-05 04:36:56 PM  

SkinnyHead: The law they are trying to repeal states that: "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?


It's all code for "Allow teachers to teach creationist BS in a science classroom".
 
2013-05-05 04:40:04 PM  
...after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had

[idontwanttoliveonthisplanet.jpg]
 
2013-05-05 04:41:03 PM  
freethoughtblogs.com
 
2013-05-05 04:42:34 PM  
I, for one, would love to see children contribute more to science classes by allowing children to propose their own theories about evolution, the beginning of life, and global warming.  Why, when I was a lad of five, I believed aliens farted us into existence on a big ball of shiat created by super dinosaurs that lived in the moon, and these super-dinos were directing our evolution toward being the ultimate half-time snack, and, when humans contained exactly the right ratio of bones/fat/muscle, they would hoover us all up to their secret dino-base in the moon and eat us.

Prove me wrong, evilutionists and creatards.  Don't dare stifle my open-minded pursuit of knowledge!
 
2013-05-05 04:43:14 PM  
I'm reminded of a certain RPG where a roll of a critical success would frequently result in things going horribly right.  I'm envisioning a dude at a celestial game table saying "I roll to con the senator into buying that i'm actually a tribal medicine man"... roll roll roll ... "shiat."
 
2013-05-05 04:44:14 PM  

Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]


That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.
 
2013-05-05 04:44:33 PM  

phaseolus: SkinnyHead: evolution

Settled. No controversy.

the origins of life

Settled. No controversy.

global warming

Developing, but as far as climate scientists are concerned, not very controversial. See about a thousand previous Fark threads.

...and human cloning.

That one would be an interesting topic of discussion for an ethics class.


Human cloning is a hot topic in bioethics. Other interesting topics of discussion based on cutting edge and future concerns could be capitalist globalization, how to deal with artificial intelligences, the ethics of first contact (or, indeed, initiating any contact with alien civilizations)... Of course, the right-wing response to all of those is going to be "whatever gives us the most political and economic domination regardless of any other factors".
 
2013-05-05 04:44:47 PM  
Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.
 
2013-05-05 04:45:25 PM  

GilRuiz1: I'm surprised Slate admitted Sen. Guillory is a Democrat.


Southern backwardness knows no political party.
 
2013-05-05 04:51:00 PM  

Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]


:(
 
2013-05-05 04:51:38 PM  

GilRuiz1: I'm surprised Slate admitted Sen. Guillory is a Democrat.


Why?
 
2013-05-05 04:53:17 PM  
Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could "lock the door on being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures.""Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man-in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed-if I had closed him off and just said, 'That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor,' I would have shut off a very good experience for myself," Guillory said.


The joke is that his "medical ailment" was male pattern baldness.

 
2013-05-05 04:54:39 PM  

SkinnyHead: The law they are trying to repeal states that: "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?


No, no it does not. All this does is open the way for bullshiat to be taught in the classroom. Do not teach religion in the science classroom. We don't go around teaching biology in the a religion class.
 
2013-05-05 04:55:37 PM  

phaseolus: SkinnyHead: evolution

Settled. No controversy.

the origins of life

Settled. No controversy.

global warming

Developing, but as far as climate scientists are concerned, not very controversial. See about a thousand previous Fark threads.

...and human cloning.

That one would be an interesting topic of discussion for an ethics class.


So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics?  Isn't that an anti-logic position?
 
2013-05-05 04:55:47 PM  

jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.


Actually, IIRC the father of the child is the one who made the test public because he was shocked that his top notch private school was so terrible regarding science.  I believe the family is pulling the child from the school next year.
 
2013-05-05 04:56:33 PM  

BitwiseShift: I was hoping for half-naked witches and the physician who treats them.


25.media.tumblr.com

Think about it, it's f*cking genius!
 
2013-05-05 04:56:48 PM  

SkinnyHead: Isn't that an anti-logic position?


Like saying someone believes things are settled based on fark threads, when he neither said nor implied any such thing, fark face?
 
2013-05-05 04:57:03 PM  

SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?


Riddle me this (because I'm bored).

Why should creationism be taught in a science class in a public school? It's not a scientifically valid theory.
 
2013-05-05 04:59:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?

Riddle me this (because I'm bored).

Why should creationism be taught in a science class in a public school? It's not a scientifically valid theory.


"Because a theory is just a guess!"
 
2013-05-05 04:59:48 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: The law they are trying to repeal states that: "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?

No, no it does not. All this does is open the way for bullshiat to be taught in the classroom. Do not teach religion in the science classroom. We don't go around teaching biology in the a religion class.


Teaching critical thinking skills and logical analysis is now considered bullshiat?
 
2013-05-05 05:00:11 PM  
Why are you people responding to him?

Also, I farking loathe any state or politician that does this farking bullshiat. It's hurting us as a country.
 
2013-05-05 05:00:37 PM  

phaseolus: SkinnyHead: evolution

Settled. No controversy.

the origins of life

Settled. No controversy.


global warming

Developing, but as far as climate scientists are concerned, not very controversial. See about a thousand previous Fark threads.

...and human cloning.

That one would be an interesting topic of discussion for an ethics class.


say what?
 
2013-05-05 05:01:08 PM  

thamike: Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could "lock the door on being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures.""Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man-in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed-if I had closed him off and just said, 'That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor,' I would have shut off a very good experience for myself," Guillory said.


The joke is that his "medical ailment" was male pattern baldness  ED


FTFY
 
2013-05-05 05:01:08 PM  

Bloody William: Why are you people responding to him?

Also, I farking loathe any state or politician that does this farking bullshiat. It's hurting us as a country.


I am shocked that there are people who don't have SkinnyDerp on ignore. He's not the most loathsome idiot troll we have around here but he may well be the stupidest.
 
2013-05-05 05:01:17 PM  

Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]


That "Were you there?" response could also be used to counter just about everything that fundies claim to be true.
 
2013-05-05 05:02:15 PM  

SkinnyHead: phaseolus: SkinnyHead: evolution

Settled. No controversy.

the origins of life

Settled. No controversy.

global warming

Developing, but as far as climate scientists are concerned, not very controversial. See about a thousand previous Fark threads.

...and human cloning.

That one would be an interesting topic of discussion for an ethics class.

So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics?  Isn't that an anti-logic position?


The only anti-logic is allowing a non scientific theory be thought in a science classroom.
 
2013-05-05 05:02:53 PM  

Walter Paisley: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That "Were you there?" response could also be used to counter just about everything that fundies claim to be true.


Yeah, that'd seem like kind of a big farking hole in that argument, except they just point at the Bible and the "conversation" goes down the hole completely. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
 
2013-05-05 05:03:56 PM  

SkinnyHead: Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: The law they are trying to repeal states that: "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?

No, no it does not. All this does is open the way for bullshiat to be taught in the classroom. Do not teach religion in the science classroom. We don't go around teaching biology in the a religion class.

Teaching critical thinking skills and logical analysis is now considered bullshiat?


Because it is not about teaching critical thinking skills. It is about shoving non science where it does not belong.
 
2013-05-05 05:04:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?

Riddle me this (because I'm bored).

Why should creationism be taught in a science class in a public school? It's not a scientifically valid theory.


Louisiana Science Education Act does not provide for the teaching of creationism. It promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.
 
2013-05-05 05:05:51 PM  
SkinnyHead:

Louisiana Science Education Act does not provide for the teaching of creationism. It promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.

...including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

So how is this not an open door to teach creationism again?
 
2013-05-05 05:08:08 PM  

jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.


The funny thing is the answer to #18's rhetorical question is "Yes"  The cosmic background radiation is the afterglow of the surface of last scattering, we observe it now.  This, along with other observed properties of nature, leads us to one of two inescapable mutually exclusive conclusions:  The universe and Earth are billions of years old, or microwaves are really witching boxes powered by the devil's lies.
 
2013-05-05 05:08:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?

Considering we're talking about religious people, yes.


Creationism is not taught at any of the Catholic schools in New Orleans, but bigots like you find facts inconvenient.
 
2013-05-05 05:08:47 PM  
Well yeah but shiat.

Prayer is just hoping. Voodoo gets results.
 
2013-05-05 05:08:53 PM  
FTFA: ""Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man-in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed-if I had closed him off and just said, 'That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor,' I would have shut off a very good experience for myself," Guillory said."

And next week will denounce:


herbal remedies, medical marijuana
the health benefits of Yoga, Tai-Chi, ChiGong or whatever
accupuncture, guided meditation
non-christian religions
etc.
 
2013-05-05 05:08:58 PM  

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?

Riddle me this (because I'm bored).

Why should creationism be taught in a science class in a public school? It's not a scientifically valid theory.

Louisiana Science Education Act does not provide for the teaching of creationism. It promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.


What "theories" exactly?
 
2013-05-05 05:09:13 PM  

SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?


So, the bill does not allow for discussion of creationism/intelligent design in the classroom, because neither of those things use logic or critical thinking skills.

"Teacher, the Bible says god created life, can we discuss that?"
"No, because there is no scientific evidence that god exists, so it could not create life.  Prove god exists, scientifically, prove such a god could create life, scientifically, get it peer reviewed and published, then we will discuss it."

"Teacher, my pastor said that god intelligently designed humans, can we discuss that?"
"No, because there is no scientific evidence that the body is intelligently designed. The human body is full of flaws and weaknesses that no intelligent designer would allow to exist.  Logically,  it would be more likely to suppose that the body was designed by an unintelligent or or evil being.  But, unless you can scientifically prove the existence of even this piss-poor designer, we must discount their existence, as well."

Whelp, that's a waste of five minutes of class time.
 
2013-05-05 05:09:13 PM  

Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]


THat's the first time I've seen the second page of that test. I don't want to live on this planet any longer.
 
2013-05-05 05:11:40 PM  

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?

Riddle me this (because I'm bored).

Why should creationism be taught in a science class in a public school? It's not a scientifically valid theory.

Louisiana Science Education Act does not provide for the teaching of creationism. It promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.


Were any of these things barred from the classroom before? Of course not. What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class. The bill is designed using "teach the controversy" language to give cover for proselytizers to undermine the science curriculum.
 
2013-05-05 05:13:11 PM  
What is annoying is that the Bible doesn't say the world is 6000 years old. Genesis just describes the end of the last ice age.

Read your own book, idiots.
 
2013-05-05 05:13:50 PM  

Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead:

Louisiana Science Education Act does not provide for the teaching of creationism. It promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.

...including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

So how is this not an open door to teach creationism again?


Creationism isn't mentioned.  And it would be contrary to the statute to teach the religious doctrine of creationism because the law prohibits the promotion any religious doctrine.
 
2013-05-05 05:13:54 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Bloody William: Why are you people responding to him?

Also, I farking loathe any state or politician that does this farking bullshiat. It's hurting us as a country.

I am shocked that there are people who don't have SkinnyDerp on ignore. He's not the most loathsome idiot troll we have around here but he may well be the stupidest.


Especially after he outted himself as an alt.
 
2013-05-05 05:15:17 PM  

devek: What is annoying is that the Bible doesn't say the world is 6000 years old. Genesis just describes the end of the last ice age.

Read your own book, idiots.


The YECs hate the OECs almost as much as they do the rest of is that accept scientific evidence.
 
2013-05-05 05:15:30 PM  

Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.


How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?
 
2013-05-05 05:16:30 PM  
TFA: "The repeal lost in a 3-2 vote. Senator Guillory's vote would've been enough to swing the decision the other way."

Louisiana has only 5 senators?
 
2013-05-05 05:16:56 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.


I find myself strangely attracted to you.
 
2013-05-05 05:17:18 PM  

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead:

Louisiana Science Education Act does not provide for the teaching of creationism. It promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.

...including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

So how is this not an open door to teach creationism again?

Creationism isn't mentioned.  And it would be contrary to the statute to teach the religious doctrine of creationism because the law prohibits the promotion any religious doctrine.


Stop. Just stop. This law is an embarrassment to the state of Louisiana. It was intended to and has opened the door to Creationism being taught in public schools here. Creationism is not science, it is a religious belief and it's one that's not even part of all of Christianity. At least use actual facts to troll.
 
2013-05-05 05:18:31 PM  

jaytkay: TFA: "The repeal lost in a 3-2 vote. Senator Guillory's vote would've been enough to swing the decision the other way."

Louisiana has only 5 senators?


I believe the repeal measure died in committee, not a floor vote. The article is unclear.
 
2013-05-05 05:19:03 PM  
I don't think schools should be teaching cretinism.
 
2013-05-05 05:19:49 PM  
How about we teach SCIENCE, in SCIENCE Class.

Creationism is not SCIENCE, Its not even a proper theory.

Besides, which creationism would you even teach.
This is just another bullshiat method to get a foot in the damn door to teach religion in Science class.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4082  - What Do Creationists Really Believe?

Creationism is not one set of beliefs - it is a battleground of dramatically conflicting world views.

tl;dr PodCast - http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4082.mp3


http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4065 - How to Debate a Young Earth Creationist

Learn the basic arguments against science made by Young Earthers, and how to rebut them.

tl;dr Podcast - http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4065.mp3


Aslo Pen And Teller Weigh in on this BULLshiat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Ii7pfcGzk  - Full Episode.
 
2013-05-05 05:19:49 PM  

SkinnyHead: Louisiana Science Education Act does not provide for the teaching of creationism. It promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.


Let's ask Bobby Jindal, the man who signed this into law, what he thinks about that, shall we?

April 12 interview w/ NBC's Education Nation:

BJ: "We have what's called the Science Education Act, that says if a teacher wants to supplement those materials, if the school board's OK with that, if the State school board's OK with that, they can supplement those materials.

"I've got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that some people have these beliefs as well. Let's teach them about intelligent design. I think teach them the best science. Let them, give them the tools where they can make up their own mind, not only in science but as they learn and teach about other controversial issues, whether it's global warming or whether it's...climate change or these other issues. What are we scared of? Let's teach our kids the best facts and information that's out there. Let's teach them what people believe and let them debate and learn that. We shouldn't be afraid of exposing our kids to more information, more knowledge. Give them critical thinking skills, and as adults they'll be able to make their own and best decisions."


TL,DR?

Quit saying that.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/01/as-creationism-law-comes-up-for-rep eal- an-appeal-to-bobby-jindal/
 
2013-05-05 05:21:28 PM  
Please tell me why we spent billions to save the people in this state after Katrina and the BP oil spill?
 
2013-05-05 05:21:34 PM  

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead:

Louisiana Science Education Act does not provide for the teaching of creationism. It promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.

...including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

So how is this not an open door to teach creationism again?

Creationism isn't mentioned.  And it would be contrary to the statute to teach the religious doctrine of creationism because the law prohibits the promotion any religious doctrine.


Student: Teacher, the textbook says the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but my pastor says it's much younger than that. Why is the book incorrect?

Teacher: Well, Timmy, it's a very controversial subject. Some scientists say the earth is old, but there's evidence on both sides. Your pastor might have some interesting material on the subject, so it might be worth talking to him.

This conversation sponsored by the Louisiana "critical thinking" law.
 
2013-05-05 05:22:07 PM  

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead:

Louisiana Science Education Act does not provide for the teaching of creationism. It promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.

...including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

So how is this not an open door to teach creationism again?

Creationism isn't mentioned.  And it would be contrary to the statute to teach the religious doctrine of creationism because the law prohibits the promotion any religious doctrine.


It just changes the name to Intelligent Design, and now it is somehow okay. It is still not science. Period.
 
2013-05-05 05:23:27 PM  

bugontherug: Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.

How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?


In fact I was. I have existed for millions of years and I have watched your species from the time you came down from the trees.

Prove me wrong.
 
2013-05-05 05:23:34 PM  

NeverDrunk23: A Dark Evil Omen: Bloody William: Why are you people responding to him?

Also, I farking loathe any state or politician that does this farking bullshiat. It's hurting us as a country.

I am shocked that there are people who don't have [ThinCranium] on ignore. He's not the most loathsome idiot troll we have around here but he may well be the stupidest.

Especially after he outted himself as [elxxxx's] alt.


I don't have anybody on ignore.  Frankly, I don't see the point.

I don't let what trolls write get me exercised (usually, I just skim over their nonsense) and, it's possible they might occasionally say something interesting or, at least, mildly entertaining.  So why would I ignore them?  I'm a grown man, not a delicate flower.
 
2013-05-05 05:23:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: Creationism isn't mentioned. And it would be contrary to the statute to teach the religious doctrine of creationism because the law prohibits the promotion any religious doctrine.


Interviewed by NBC News (April 12, 2013), Louisiana's governor Bobby Jindal (R) explicitly stated that the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act permits the teaching of creationism, including "intelligent design." Jindal was asked (at around 9:00), "Should creationism be taught in schools?" He did not answer the question directly, although he implied that it would be up to private schools to decide whether to teach creationism, so the interviewer asked, "So you don't think so, you don't think that creationism should be taught in public schools?"


Responding, Jindal said in part, "We have what's called the Science Education Act that says that if a teacher wants to supplement those materials, if the school board is okay with that, if the state school board is okay with that, they can supplement those materials. ... Let's teach them - I've got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that people, some people, have these beliefs as well, let's teach them about 'intelligent design'." "What are we scared of?" he asked.


Huh, the guy who signed the bill says you are wrong.  Stop it, el chip.
 
2013-05-05 05:25:48 PM  

Stile4aly: bugontherug: Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.

How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?

In fact I was. I have existed for millions of years and I have watched your species from the time you came down from the trees.

Prove me wrong.


That was you?  I kept saying "hi" through the ages, and you just ignored me. Talk about antisocial.
 
2013-05-05 05:27:11 PM  

SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?



Those might be good topics for a History of Science course, or a Philosophy of Science course, should High Schools decide to teach those courses. Put that stuff in a Science course and it's only Republican Political Correctness. Throwing a bone to the fundies.

And, no, I don't believe things because of Fark threads. I was only pointing out that we've all argued this shiat before, at great length, over and over and over and over and over


Ned Stark: say what?



Maybe I'm not as well-informed as I should be on the origins of life, but I guess I've always assumed that the prevailing opinion was that given the laws of chemistry, some primordial soup and other favorable starting conditions, and a billion years, life likely just sort of popped out of the blue. And if the discussion is whether if it happened on Earth or flew in on an asteroid from someplace else, we would only be speculating on venues. I'll happily stand corrected if you have some good links handy for me to read...
 
2013-05-05 05:28:15 PM  

SkinnyHead: "...open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied

..."

I don't remember there being any such thing until High School.   Kids are too unruly to have a discussion until they are at least 15 for the smart ones.
 
2013-05-05 05:29:36 PM  
I think that we should make anyone who is up for any public office, or anyone who would be in charge of education to take a test. It would be a simple test. "Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old"? "Do you believe that Creationism is a scientific theory"? "Do you believe that what is in the Bible is literal truth"? If they answer yes to any of those questions, then they are not eligible for that job.

Before anyone yells that this is bias or discriminatory, most of the Christians I know will say no to all of these questions.
 
2013-05-05 05:30:19 PM  

Stile4aly: Student: Teacher, the textbook says the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but my pastor says it's much younger than that. Why is the book incorrect?

Teacher: Well, Timmy, it's a very controversial subject. Some scientists say the earth is old, but there's evidence on both sides. Your pastor might have some interesting material on the subject, so it might be worth talking to him.

This conversation sponsored by the Louisiana "critical thinking" law.


That's not a display of critical thinking skills or logical analysis.  Repeating the conclusions of others, whether it is a pastor or climate scientist, does not teach the student critical thinking skills or logical analysis.
 
2013-05-05 05:32:39 PM  

SkinnyHead: Stile4aly: Student: Teacher, the textbook says the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but my pastor says it's much younger than that. Why is the book incorrect?

Teacher: Well, Timmy, it's a very controversial subject. Some scientists say the earth is old, but there's evidence on both sides. Your pastor might have some interesting material on the subject, so it might be worth talking to him.

This conversation sponsored by the Louisiana "critical thinking" law.

That's not a display of critical thinking skills or logical analysis.  Repeating the conclusions of others, whether it is a pastor or climate scientist, does not teach the student critical thinking skills or logical analysis.


You are side-stepping the issue. Creationism is not science. Asking an opinion from someone is not science.
 
2013-05-05 05:33:12 PM  

phaseolus: the origins of life

Settled. No controversy.


What? No.

There's still a number of competing theories, from on-earth parthenogenesis to Panspermia (not "ALIENS" panspermia, more 'a  planet got fragged and some fragments had precursors").

Or possibley some weird combo (I think they've found some evidence of organic compounds on comets that occured naturally? Though I have no idea if those would survive entry).

Not, mind, to say that "THIS MEANS GOD DID IT", I'm just saying "Uh, no. I don't think that one's been settled yet?"
 
2013-05-05 05:33:21 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: I think that we should make anyone who is up for any public office, or anyone who would be in charge of education to take a test. It would be a simple test. "Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old"? "Do you believe that Creationism is a scientific theory"? "Do you believe that what is in the Bible is literal truth"? If they answer yes to any of those questions, then they are not eligible for that job.


I'm pretty sure you'd need a constitutional amendment to make that happen...at least so that it sticks.

And, how likely is that?  Think, for a moment, how stupid the average person is.
 
2013-05-05 05:33:38 PM  
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.,
 
2013-05-05 05:38:37 PM  
And another thread is ruined by people responding to Skinnyhead.
 
2013-05-05 05:46:21 PM  

Stile4aly: bugontherug: Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.

How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?

In fact I was. I have existed for millions of years and I have watched your species from the time you came down from the trees.

Prove me wrong.


Hope you know I was joking, bro. If you look at the last question on side two of that goddamn test, the final question is "what can you say if someone tries to tell you the Earth is billions of years old?" The answer, which was scored correctly, is "were you there."

They're teaching them to parrot moronic Fox talking points from an early age.

This country is doomed.
 
2013-05-05 05:47:15 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: I think that we should make anyone who is up for any public office, or anyone who would be in charge of education to take a test. It would be a simple test. "Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old"? "Do you believe that Creationism is a scientific theory"? "Do you believe that what is in the Bible is literal truth"? If they answer yes to any of those questions, then they are not eligible for that job.

Before anyone yells that this is bias or discriminatory, most of the Christians I know will say no to all of these questions.


Well, we don't have an official test, but there's no rule against asking politicians those questions at a town hall or something.  I wish more people would do that with Republican candidates, especially in the primaries.
 
2013-05-05 05:49:21 PM  

RyogaM: SkinnyHead: Creationism isn't mentioned. And it would be contrary to the statute to teach the religious doctrine of creationism because the law prohibits the promotion any religious doctrine.

Interviewed by NBC News (April 12, 2013), Louisiana's governor Bobby Jindal (R) explicitly stated that the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act permits the teaching of creationism, including "intelligent design." Jindal was asked (at around 9:00), "Should creationism be taught in schools?" He did not answer the question directly, although he implied that it would be up to private schools to decide whether to teach creationism, so the interviewer asked, "So you don't think so, you don't think that creationism should be taught in public schools?"


Responding, Jindal said in part, "We have what's called the Science Education Act that says that if a teacher wants to supplement those materials, if the school board is okay with that, if the state school board is okay with that, they can supplement those materials. ... Let's teach them - I've got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that people, some people, have these beliefs as well, let's teach them about 'intelligent design'." "What are we scared of?" he asked.


Huh, the guy who signed the bill says you are wrong.  Stop it, el chip.


The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design.  But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.
 
2013-05-05 05:51:26 PM  

SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.


What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?
 
2013-05-05 05:55:54 PM  

SkinnyHead: But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom


The only proper response from the teacher is that it is not science.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.,

 

SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself


No, it clearly does not, because the guy who signed it says it would allow creationism/ID.   You are obviously wrong.
 
2013-05-05 05:57:18 PM  

SkinnyHead: the scientific theory of intelligent design


[hahaohwow]
 
2013-05-05 05:57:31 PM  

SkinnyHead: ut if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.


The problem is, there is no such theory.
 
2013-05-05 06:10:05 PM  
I love the sentence in which they describe the opposition to the bill:  78 Nobel Laureates, the City Council and Slate Magazine.

We all know that if you can't be persuaded by 78 Nobel Laureates that adding Slate to the opposition will usually change your mind.
 
2013-05-05 06:10:46 PM  
www.yoism.org
 
2013-05-05 06:14:27 PM  
sciencebasedpharmacy.files.wordpress.com

Again with this shiat, Louisiana? Edwards v. Aguillard was 1987, for fark's sake. You lost then but you just GOT to keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-05-05 06:15:21 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?


The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.
 
2013-05-05 06:16:04 PM  
Skinny and TPoC in the same thread? The derp, the derp...
 
2013-05-05 06:19:53 PM  

SkinnyHead: The law they are trying to repeal states that: "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?


You could use positive descriptive words for your agenda but it wouldn't change the effect.

Many of the schools here are using science class to teach a form of fundamentalist bible school lessons with the world created 6,453 years ago as dogma

But I forget I'm talking to skinnyhead
 
2013-05-05 06:19:56 PM  

phaseolus: SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?


Those might be good topics for a History of Science course, or a Philosophy of Science course, should High Schools decide to teach those courses. Put that stuff in a Science course and it's only Republican Political Correctness. Throwing a bone to the fundies.

And, no, I don't believe things because of Fark threads. I was only pointing out that we've all argued this shiat before, at great length, over and over and over and over and over


Ned Stark: say what?


Maybe I'm not as well-informed as I should be on the origins of life, but I guess I've always assumed that the prevailing opinion was that given the laws of chemistry, some primordial soup and other favorable starting conditions, and a billion years, life likely just sort of popped out of the blue. And if the discussion is whether if it happened on Earth or flew in on an asteroid from someplace else, we would only be speculating on venues. I'll happily stand corrected if you have some good links handy for me to read...


Deep ocean 'black smokers' is the best theory yet. The composition of the lava walls of the tubes is naturally foamy, which created li'l pockets of hot, chemically-rich fluids that have been shown to have the precursors of bio-chemistry going on in them.

While the auto-creation of a fully-functioning bacterium hasn't been observed, where and how life began is pretty clear.
 
2013-05-05 06:20:07 PM  
So would directed panspermia fall under intelligent design?

Since intelligent design is not just 'God did it" but the scientific evidence that proves a creator designed life on Earth they are going to show all the possible ways that could happen right?
 
2013-05-05 06:21:07 PM  

Serious Black: Fart_Machine: Is this a race to the bottom with Kansas?

God, I hope not. If Brownbackistan sinks any further, they'll plummet to the bottom of the ocean.


Save us, James Cameron!
 
2013-05-05 06:27:23 PM  

jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.


FYI, the parents weren't happy about it, and the father stated the child would not be attending the school the following year.

Link
 
2013-05-05 06:27:46 PM  

SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.


Can you describe for the class a test that would falsify it?
 
2013-05-05 06:28:31 PM  

spongeboob: So would directed panspermia fall under intelligent design?

Since intelligent design is not just 'God did it" but the scientific evidence that proves a creator designed life on Earth they are going to show all the possible ways that could happen right?


Another one of the points that winds up getting beaten to death in these threads is the dichotomy between what could maybe possibly be termed "intelligent design" and what the groups that promote "intelligent design" actually mean. The overwhelming majority of "intelligent design" material, especially as it pertains to public schools, is attempts to argue that biological evolution is not sufficient to arrive at the diversity we currently have. But I'm sure you know this.
 
2013-05-05 06:35:18 PM  

SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.


No you're confusing that with the false conclusion of the intelligent design religion. Common mistake.
 
2013-05-05 06:35:47 PM  

spongeboob: So would directed panspermia fall under intelligent design?

Since intelligent design is not just 'God did it" but the scientific evidence that proves a creator designed life on Earth they are going to show all the possible ways that could happen right?


Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency.  Some scientists who see evidence of intelligent design, but cannot accept God, prefer to believe that the intelligent designer could be a space alien.  Both scenarios fit into the scientific theory of intelligent design, because ID theory does not name the designer.
 
2013-05-05 06:36:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency


How does one scientifically test for this? I have yet to see one devised that can prove the hypothesis.
 
2013-05-05 06:38:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency

How does one scientifically test for this? I have yet to see one devised that can prove the hypothesis.


More importantly, there's no way of disproving it, which means it isn't science.
 
2013-05-05 06:40:28 PM  

eraser8: GilRuiz1: I'm surprised Slate admitted Sen. Guillory is a Democrat.

Why?


Because as we all know, liberals never admit that their side does anything wrong. If someone espouses a blatantly wrong or stupid idea, either they are a Republican or the liberal lamestream media glosses over the fact that anyone can be a stupid dumbass. This means that either Slate is a sekrit conservative publication, or they made a mistake and accidentally admitted that even Democrats can be dummies too.
 
2013-05-05 06:41:29 PM  

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: So would directed panspermia fall under intelligent design?

Since intelligent design is not just 'God did it" but the scientific evidence that proves a creator designed life on Earth they are going to show all the possible ways that could happen right?

Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency.  Some scientists who see evidence of intelligent design, but cannot accept God, prefer to believe that the intelligent designer could be a space alien.  Both scenarios fit into the scientific theory of intelligent design, because ID theory does not name the designer.


There is ZERO evidence for intelligent design.

Protip: The bible is not evidence.
Protip: Coast to Coast AM is not evidence.
 
2013-05-05 06:45:37 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.

Can you describe for the class a test that would falsify it?


If Evolutionists can ever prove that life came into being and evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, that would falsify the scientific theory of intelligent design.
 
2013-05-05 06:47:24 PM  

SkinnyHead: If Evolutionists can ever prove that life came into being and evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, that would falsify the scientific theory of intelligent design.


That's not how science works.
 
2013-05-05 06:51:39 PM  

SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.

Can you describe for the class a test that would falsify it?

If Evolutionists can ever prove that life came into being and evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, that would falsify the scientific theory of intelligent design.


Science has never "proven" anything. It does however disprove lots of things, but they have to be testable first.

If the test of your hypothesis is that the other guy has to prove his, then you have no falsifiable hypothesis, and hence have no science.
 
2013-05-05 06:52:40 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency

How does one scientifically test for this? I have yet to see one devised that can prove the hypothesis.

More importantly, there's no way of disproving it, which means it isn't science.


One could also say that if those scientists who advocated Intelligent Design were working on ways of proving or disproving their theory, rather that only advocating it as "belief" with no interest in testing it, the theory might gain at least some kind of acceptance in the scientific community.
 
2013-05-05 06:53:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency

How does one scientifically test for this? I have yet to see one devised that can prove the hypothesis.


I would be rather interested in seeing how various fundamental religious organizations would respond to the determination that life on earth was created by an intelligent alien species... but not a God.

Somehow, I think that then they would believe that there was a difference.
 
2013-05-05 06:53:44 PM  

SkinnyHead: Both scenarios fit into the scientific theory of intelligent design, because ID theory does not name the designer.


The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.,

There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed.   It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly.  This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer.  We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

Without meeting even this first step, you never reach the second step, the step which makes it unscientific, the step which requires you to believe in an intelligent agency.  And hypothesizing an unintelligent or evil agent is, likewise, not scientific because you can not falsify the existence of a hypothetical evil/idiot designer.
 
2013-05-05 06:58:42 PM  

jcooli09: Sometimes I am ashamed of my country.


Sometimes?
 
2013-05-05 06:59:41 PM  
img.photobucket.com

ARISE CHICKEN! So I can fark you some more.
 
2013-05-05 07:03:09 PM  

RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.


This of course is true. The inefficiences and maladaptions of the human body make sense as a product of a long evolutionary process that is inherently conservative (in the traditional, non-partisan sense). As the one-off construction of a supernatural engineer however, it just plain sucks.

So either life on Earth wasn't designed, or the designer wasn't very intelligent. Tough choice, that one.
 
2013-05-05 07:05:21 PM  

BSABSVR: jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.

Actually, IIRC the father of the child is the one who made the test public because he was shocked that his top notch private school was so terrible regarding science.  I believe the family is pulling the child from the school next year.


I'm going to be very unhappy if I find that picture is not an April Fool's Day thing, which had been my guess until now.
 
2013-05-05 07:05:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If Evolutionists can ever prove that life came into being and evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, that would falsify the scientific theory of intelligent design.

That's not how science works.


"If you can prove we're wrong, then our theory is false! Until then we're totally right and you lose! What do you mean, 'that's not how science works'???"
 
2013-05-05 07:06:08 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.

Can you describe for the class a test that would falsify it?

If Evolutionists can ever prove that life came into being and evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, that would falsify the scientific theory of intelligent design.

Science has never "proven" anything. It does however disprove lots of things, but they have to be testable first.

If the test of your hypothesis is that the other guy has to prove his, then you have no falsifiable hypothesis, and hence have no science.


Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?
 
2013-05-05 07:06:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: The law they are trying to repeal states that: "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?


The bill also says "A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education."

Which is the part people have a problem with. But of course you knew that, and you're just being an obtuse flunkie, like always.
 
2013-05-05 07:06:40 PM  
ID fails to be science because, since it relies on magic, and magic can be used to explain anything, it's impossible to disprove.
 
2013-05-05 07:07:27 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

This of course is true. The inefficiences and maladaptions of the human body make sense as a product of a long evolutionary process that is inherently conservative (in the traditional, non-partisan sense). As the one-off construction of a supernatural engineer however, it just plain sucks.

So either life on Earth wasn't designed, or the designer wasn't very intelligent. Tough choice, that one.


You are clearly not the real Wolf Blitzer.  He never would have written something that intelligent.

cdn.uproxx.com
 
2013-05-05 07:07:33 PM  

Old enough to know better: Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.


Well the group that pushed the bill through Louisiana was from Seattle, so...
 
2013-05-05 07:11:40 PM  

Old enough to know better: Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.


I'm in Cle Elum in Washington, and those freaks are out here on this side of the mountains.
 
2013-05-05 07:12:19 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?


Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.
 
2013-05-05 07:13:24 PM  

RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

Without meeting even this first step, you never reach the second step, the step which makes it unscientific, the step which requires you to believe in an intelligent agency. And hypothesizing an unintelligent or evil agent is, likewise, not scientific because you can not falsify the existence of a hypothetical evil/idiot designer.


The same can be said of your car.  Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly.  Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?
 
2013-05-05 07:15:55 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?


Very easily, thank you for asking.

By the stratigraphic principle of superposition, sedimentary rock layers deposited on top of one another represent a time sequence. This is true whether the time in question is 4.5 billion years, or 6 thousand. If life did not evolve over time, we would expect the fossils that we find in these rock layers to be the same, accounting for potential changes in depositional environments. Since we find that rocks of different ages have clearly different fossils, the test is negative (i.e. it fails to disprove the hypothesis).

There are of course many other tests that one could construct, but as I'm a geologist this is the first one I would suggest.
 
2013-05-05 07:16:02 PM  

SkinnyHead: RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

Without meeting even this first step, you never reach the second step, the step which makes it unscientific, the step which requires you to believe in an intelligent agency. And hypothesizing an unintelligent or evil agent is, likewise, not scientific because you can not falsify the existence of a hypothetical evil/idiot designer.

The same can be said of your car.  Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly.  Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?


That's proof that it was designed by  humans. Are you saying that everything in existence was designed by humans?
 
2013-05-05 07:16:19 PM  

NateAsbestos: Old enough to know better: Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.

Well the group that pushed the bill through Louisiana was from Seattle, so...


Western Washington state is relatively sane for the most part, but there are some really nutty groups (white supremacists, militias, preppers, etc...) in the eastern part of the state and in northern Idaho.
 
2013-05-05 07:18:19 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: I'm going to be very unhappy if I find that picture is not an April Fool's Day thing, which had been my guess until now.


dammitsomuch!
 
2013-05-05 07:19:53 PM  

Walter Paisley: NateAsbestos: Old enough to know better: Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.

Well the group that pushed the bill through Louisiana was from Seattle, so...

Western Washington state is relatively sane for the most part, but there are some really nutty groups (white supremacists, militias, preppers, etc...) in the eastern part of the state and in northern Idaho.


True.

But, keep in mind that the Discovery Institute maintains 208 Columbia Street, Seattle as its headquarters.
 
2013-05-05 07:20:06 PM  

eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.


Also, find an animal who does not use DNA as a coding for genes, or, find an animal whose DNA should be similar by say 90% to another animal we believe is related to it, and find out it's DNA has 0% similarity.  Find an animal with a true Black Box adaption.

Its is quite easy to falsify every part of evolutionary theory, from gene, to fossils, to whatever have you.  Scientists have been trying to do it for far longer that creationists.
 
2013-05-05 07:20:32 PM  

eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.


This is not necessarily a test to disprove evolution itself, only certain elements of the evolutionary history we've devloped. It is entirely possible, albeit unlikely, that a relict population of australopithecines or even trilobites could exist, without falsifying evolution in general.

In addition, its important to note that there are geologic processes that can cause reworking of fossils and redeposition in misleading associations or sequences. These processes are almost always detectable with some additional observations.
 
2013-05-05 07:21:54 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?


That's not what the "theory of evolution" postulates. The theories of the origin of life have very little to do with the theory of evolution as it relates to more complex organisms having evolved from less-complex ones. The fact that there are some things about how the process began that we don't as yet comprehend does NOT invalidate the entire process; therefore, just because science can't prove how the very first amoeba originated does NOT mean that humans are the result of Divine Intervention.

You're conflating scientific requirements of "proof" with legal chain-of-custody evidential "proof" and it doesn't work that way in science. Science allows for gaps in the chain as long as they can be filled by inference, because the times involved are so huge (millions of years, or even billions in some cases). The law does not. Stick to your own area of inexpertise.
 
2013-05-05 07:23:38 PM  
In 2008, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed the "Louisiana Science Education Act" into law. This Orwellian-named bit of legislation was an outrageous attempt to allow creationism to be taught in schools.

Oh FFS, LEARN what farking "Orwellian" means before slapping it on everything that is handy, you dipshiat. The name is not "Orwellian" at all. Something like the Thinking Alignment Act, now THAT would be "Orwellain".

God, journalism has turned to utter shiat. People don't even bother to use the right version of a word anymore. The bee removal story on the Main Page said that the bees were removed from the "eve" of the house. It used to be that you only saw this type of shiat on the message boards, the articles were still written by professionals. I'm not even sure journalism degrees exist anymore... I sure as Hell know that editors don't.
 
2013-05-05 07:24:12 PM  

eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.


You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.
 
2013-05-05 07:24:33 PM  

SkinnyHead: Some scientists who see evidence of intelligent design, but cannot accept God, prefer to believe that the intelligent designer could be a space alien.


David Brinn finds your comments very uplifting.

*blink*
 
2013-05-05 07:26:28 PM  

SkinnyHead: You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.


The idea that you think a flaw in evolution should precipitate an immediate sea change of opinion to support intelligent design clearly demonstrates you have no idea how science works.
 
2013-05-05 07:27:25 PM  

SkinnyHead: The same can be said of your car. Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?


Stop it, el chip.  You are postulating a super intelligent designer, not a human designer. A designer with the ability to design a living creature from the ground up, with his super power.  And you think such a super designer would allow a flaw to choke on a cracker? To drown on a planet made of 3/4 water?  To burn in 10 minutes of sunlight? That's asinine.  And it's not science, as I pointed out again and again and again.

That sad thing is you probably think this asinine back and forth is somehow useful to the debate and you are just being a good devil's advocate.  But you aren't.  You just wasting time.
 
2013-05-05 07:27:56 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?


http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4010 - An Evolution Primer for Young Earth Creationists
Evolution 101 for Young Earth Creationists who want to know better.


tl;dr PODCAST- http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4010.mp3
 
2013-05-05 07:29:14 PM  

SkinnyHead: RyogaM: SkinnyHead: Creationism isn't mentioned. And it would be contrary to the statute to teach the religious doctrine of creationism because the law prohibits the promotion any religious doctrine.

Interviewed by NBC News (April 12, 2013), Louisiana's governor Bobby Jindal (R) explicitly stated that the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act permits the teaching of creationism, including "intelligent design." Jindal was asked (at around 9:00), "Should creationism be taught in schools?" He did not answer the question directly, although he implied that it would be up to private schools to decide whether to teach creationism, so the interviewer asked, "So you don't think so, you don't think that creationism should be taught in public schools?"


Responding, Jindal said in part, "We have what's called the Science Education Act that says that if a teacher wants to supplement those materials, if the school board is okay with that, if the state school board is okay with that, they can supplement those materials. ... Let's teach them - I've got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that people, some people, have these beliefs as well, let's teach them about 'intelligent design'." "What are we scared of?" he asked.


Huh, the guy who signed the bill says you are wrong.  Stop it, el chip.

The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design.  But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.


That statement might carry more weight if the governor of the state didn't say that that is precisely what it would allow.

"I've got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that some people have these beliefs as well. Let's teach them about intelligent design. I think teach them the best science. Let them, give them the tools where they can make up their own mind, not only in science but as they learn and teach about other controversial issues, whether it's global warming or whether it's...climate change or these other issues. What are we scared of? Let's teach our kids the best facts and information that's out there. Let's teach them what people believe and let them debate and learn that. We shouldn't be afraid of exposing our kids to more information, more knowledge. Give them critical thinking skills, and as adults they'll be able to make their own and best decisions."
Bobby Jindal April 12, 2013

Students in a science class shouldn't be placed in a position of separating science from bullshiat. They should be there to learn science, not fantasy. Teaching them religious nonsense is just wasting valuable time.

Let's teach our kids the best facts and information that's out there.  Sorry Bobby... that doesn't include what you want to corrupt the children of your state with.
 
2013-05-05 07:29:23 PM  

Bermuda59: Please tell me why we spent billions to save the people in this state after Katrina and the BP oil spill?


because not all of us are pants on head retarded.
 
2013-05-05 07:30:40 PM  

SkinnyHead: eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.

You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.


Falsified hypotheses being modified is a normal part of the scientific process. A hypothesis must only be discarded, not merely modified when either 1) it can no longer be sufficiently modified without becoming untestable, or 2) another hypothesis is developed which explains the data equally or better and is more parsimonious.

Every scientific hypothesis ever developed has been subsequently modified to some extent. This is a strength, not a weakness of the scientific method.
 
2013-05-05 07:30:51 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: This is not necessarily a test to disprove evolution itself, only certain elements of the evolutionary history we've devloped. It is entirely possible, albeit unlikely, that a relict population of australopithecines or even trilobites could exist, without falsifying evolution in general.


I suppose you're right (another point that proves you're not the real Wolf Blitzer).  It is technically possible for trilobites and/or australopithecines to have survived without our noticing.  And, you're right, that that oversight wouldn't definitively disprove evolution by natural selection.

But, from all our evidence and experience, trilobites went extinct hundreds of millions of years ago.  And,  Australopithecus afarensis died out three or four million years ago.  But, quoting Carl Sagan, "in those old rocks, we don't see fossils of people or of cattle...because we've evolved only recently.  Evolution is a fact...it really happened."
 
2013-05-05 07:33:44 PM  

Bermuda59: Please tell me why we spent billions to save the people in this state after Katrina and the BP oil spill?


Well for one, the amounts of material shipped via the Midwestern river network basically demands the existence of a major port at the mouth of the Mississippi. The U.S. economy would suffer massively without it.
 
2013-05-05 07:33:51 PM  
An intelligent designer created humans, in all their complex beauty, and said "This needs a dash of Harlequin Fetus Syndrome?"
 
2013-05-05 07:35:50 PM  
This is the most painful thing you will ever watch on Youtube, hands down.

Imagine this woman with a very skinnyhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AekFGksvuDU
Richard Dawkins debates Wendy Wright (She is however very wrong)

Total running time an hour and six mins.

For something a little shorter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6hxo1sC-dU
Dawkins: Science, it works... biatches. 27 seconds.
 
2013-05-05 07:37:23 PM  
...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.
 
2013-05-05 07:41:15 PM  

eraser8: Walter Paisley: NateAsbestos: Old enough to know better: Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.

Well the group that pushed the bill through Louisiana was from Seattle, so...

Western Washington state is relatively sane for the most part, but there are some really nutty groups (white supremacists, militias, preppers, etc...) in the eastern part of the state and in northern Idaho.

True.

But, keep in mind that the Discovery Institute maintains 208 Columbia Street, Seattle as its headquarters.


It's true that there are fundies in western Washington but they generally don't have enough local support to be as influential of a political force as in other states. The Tea Party types in western Washington also tend to be very vocal but aren't taken too seriously. Kind of like that farmer's infamous Uncle Sam billboard becoming a novelty landmark. http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/6002
 
2013-05-05 07:42:20 PM  

SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.


Who is the "intelligent agency" and how would you test this? You cannot ever test it, so it is not science.
 
2013-05-05 07:42:42 PM  

PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.


Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.
 
2013-05-05 07:45:42 PM  

SkinnyHead: Darwinists


i159.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-05 07:47:22 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.

Who is the "intelligent agency" and how would you test this? You cannot ever test it, so it is not science.


Therefore, teaching Intelligent Design in science class without violating the Establishment clause (ie invoking a specific deity) would boil down to "Some people think something designed life.", before continuing on to teach evolution, which, unlike ID, has mountains of evidence to support it.

But of course, "teachers" who would willingly teach the intelligent design nonsense wouldn't care about violating the Establishment clause, would they? ID is, after all, just an excuse to shoehorn religious creationism into places it doesn't belong.
 
2013-05-05 07:48:46 PM  

Gyrfalcon: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

That's not what the "theory of evolution" postulates. The theories of the origin of life have very little to do with the theory of evolution as it relates to more complex organisms having evolved from less-complex ones. The fact that there are some things about how the process began that we don't as yet comprehend does NOT invalidate the entire process; therefore, just because science can't prove how the very first amoeba originated does NOT mean that humans are the result of Divine Intervention.

You're conflating scientific requirements of "proof" with legal chain-of-custody evidential "proof" and it doesn't work that way in science. Science allows for gaps in the chain as long as they can be filled by inference, because the times involved are so huge (millions of years, or even billions in some cases). The law does not. Stick to your own area of inexpertise.


I said that the theory of evolution postulates that all life evolved from some "ill-defined lower state," and you changed it to "less complex" organism.  What's the difference?  The theory of evolution has to start with some complexity already in existence, that's why evolutionists insist that the origin of life has very little to do with the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory cannot explain how that "less complex" organism got its complexity in the first place.  So the theory picks up with the evolutionary machinery already up and running and goes from there.
 
2013-05-05 07:49:11 PM  

Stile4aly: bugontherug: Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.

How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?

In fact I was. I have existed for millions of years and I have watched your species from the time you came down from the trees.

Prove me wrong.


Except that we, as a species, never were tree-dwelling peoples.  Homo Homo Sapiens (As opposed to Archaic Homo Sapiens) do, in any of our fossil records, have the adaptability to have lived in trees.  To find a possible common ancestor that was even both ground and tree-dwelling you have to go back MUCH farther.
 
2013-05-05 07:53:40 PM  

SkinnyHead: eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.

You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.


Surprisingly, science works by looking at the evidence, and postulating a hypothesis from that evidence. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, then we can change it based on the evidence. Evolution has been changed a few times, but it has never ever been discarded based on the evidence. We can actually test in the lab and see with our own eyes evolution in action. There is no way anyone can ever say that with ID. It is just psudoscience and BS.
 
2013-05-05 07:53:49 PM  

Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.


Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?
 
2013-05-05 07:54:48 PM  

TheDarkSaintOfGin: Stile4aly: bugontherug: Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.

How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?

In fact I was. I have existed for millions of years and I have watched your species from the time you came down from the trees.

Prove me wrong.

Except that we, as a species, never were tree-dwelling peoples.  Homo Homo Sapiens (As opposed to Archaic Homo Sapiens) do, in any of our fossil records, have the adaptability to have lived in trees.  To find a possible common ancestor that was even both ground and tree-dwelling you have to go back MUCH farther.


FWIW
Our "closest" ancestor which lived both in trees and on the ground was Australopithecus afrerensis.
 
2013-05-05 07:56:00 PM  
Stay away from the Voo Doo, mon.
 
2013-05-05 07:56:35 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.

Who is the "intelligent agency" and how would you test this? You cannot ever test it, so it is not science.


IIRC, the standard ID response is the designer is outside the scope of the hypothesis.  You'd just suppose to accept that there is one and it acted, though they have no evidence of the creator, nor a way to recognize whats directly created versus naturally occurring.

They just sidestep the issue, which is odd, considering the entire hypothesis depends on it.
 
2013-05-05 07:57:28 PM  

SkinnyHead: Gyrfalcon: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

That's not what the "theory of evolution" postulates. The theories of the origin of life have very little to do with the theory of evolution as it relates to more complex organisms having evolved from less-complex ones. The fact that there are some things about how the process began that we don't as yet comprehend does NOT invalidate the entire process; therefore, just because science can't prove how the very first amoeba originated does NOT mean that humans are the result of Divine Intervention.

You're conflating scientific requirements of "proof" with legal chain-of-custody evidential "proof" and it doesn't work that way in science. Science allows for gaps in the chain as long as they can be filled by inference, because the times involved are so huge (millions of years, or even billions in some cases). The law does not. Stick to your own area of inexpertise.

I said that the theory of evolution postulates that all life evolved from some "ill-defined lower state," and you changed it to "less complex" organism.  What's the difference?  The theory of evolution has to start with some complexity already in existence, that's why evolutionists insist that the origin of life has very little to do with the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory cannot explain how that "less complex" organism got its complexity in the first place.  So the theory picks up with the evolutionary machinery already up and running and goes from there.


They are different. It also shows me that you really have no idea what the heck you are talking about.
 
2013-05-05 07:58:07 PM  

Raharu: Imagine this woman with a very skinnyhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AekFGksvuDU
Richard Dawkins debates Wendy Wright (She is however very wrong)


Accurate description:

Wright: There's no evidence that evolution exists.
Dawkins: Yes there is evidence, it's in museums
Wright: Well I just don't buy it.

Good lord is this woman a vapid idiot.

She also seems to think that evolution is the explanation for all the bad stuff in the world.
 
2013-05-05 07:58:14 PM  

Epoch_Zero: TheDarkSaintOfGin: Stile4aly: bugontherug: Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.

How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?

In fact I was. I have existed for millions of years and I have watched your species from the time you came down from the trees.

Prove me wrong.

Except that we, as a species, never were tree-dwelling peoples.  Homo Homo Sapiens (As opposed to Archaic Homo Sapiens) do, in any of our fossil records, have the adaptability to have lived in trees.  To find a possible common ancestor that was even both ground and tree-dwelling you have to go back MUCH farther.

FWIW
Our "closest" ancestor which lived both in trees and on the ground was Australopithecus afrerensis.


Forgot this:
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-05-05 07:58:47 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: They are different. It also shows me that you really have no idea what the heck you are talking about.


He knows damn well what he's talking about. He does this on purpose because he's dishonest, not because he doesn't know any better.
 
2013-05-05 07:58:49 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.

You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.

Surprisingly, science works by looking at the evidence, and postulating a hypothesis from that evidence. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, then we can change it based on the evidence. Evolution has been changed a few times, but it has never ever been discarded based on the evidence. We can actually test in the lab and see with our own eyes evolution in action. There is no way anyone can ever say that with ID. It is just psudoscience and BS.


Indeed it is Zep, Creationists seem to think that just because we refine a theory, that suddenly makes it weaker, and not stronger.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4035 - Revisionist Darwinism: The Theory That Couldn't Sit Still
Some creationists claim that evolution is invalid because it is frequently improved and enlarged as research and knowledge are improved.


tl;dr Podcast - http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4035.mp3
 
2013-05-05 07:58:59 PM  

Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]


If it's any consolation

A) It's a private school
B) The parents are the ones who posted it and are just as wary as most people on the internet (though probably not wary enough for some...)
C) The school apparently does an amazing job teaching other subjects, just...not science, obviously
 
2013-05-05 07:59:22 PM  
Really? I'm first?

ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-05 07:59:55 PM  

ox45tallboy: jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.

FYI, the parents weren't happy about it, and the father stated the child would not be attending the school the following year.

Link


Thank you for that.  I was hoping it was faked.  I have now lost all hope.

/last shred of faith in humanity=gone
 
2013-05-05 08:00:26 PM  

Antimatter: Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.

What's the  falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design that makes it science?

The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.

Who is the "intelligent agency" and how would you test this? You cannot ever test it, so it is not science.

IIRC, the standard ID response is the designer is outside the scope of the hypothesis.  You'd just suppose to accept that there is one and it acted, though they have no evidence of the creator, nor a way to recognize whats directly created versus naturally occurring.

They just sidestep the issue, which is odd, considering the entire hypothesis depends on it.


It is almost as if they want to call the "Creator" God.
 
2013-05-05 08:01:36 PM  

SkinnyHead: I said that the theory of evolution postulates that all life evolved from some "ill-defined lower state," and you changed it to "less complex" organism. What's the difference? The theory of evolution has to start with some complexity already in existence, that's why evolutionists insist that the origin of life has very little to do with the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory cannot explain how that "less complex" organism got its complexity in the first place. So the theory picks up with the evolutionary machinery already up and running and goes from there.


There's a lot of problems here. First off, soft-bodied organisms hardly ever fossilize, especially when they're single-celled, so the odds of finding early organisms is remote. Second, the amount of sedimentary rock that has been preserved from a particular time decreases exponentially with increasing age. What that means is that the odds of finding a rock that will demonstrate how life originated are effectively nil.

In any area of knowledge, there are tons of questions that we might never be able to answer conclusively. That in no way prevents us from investigating the questions that we can answer.
 
2013-05-05 08:02:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

Without meeting even this first step, you never reach the second step, the step which makes it unscientific, the step which requires you to believe in an intelligent agency. And hypothesizing an unintelligent or evil agent is, likewise, not scientific because you can not falsify the existence of a hypothetical evil/idiot designer.

The same can be said of your car.  Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly.  Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?

That's proof that it was designed by  humans. Are you saying that everything in existence was designed by humans?


Actually, cars are very intelligently designed to make more money by being very inefficient and therefore requiring more parts. Unlike the human body, which has parts that are not only inefficient, but also serve no purpose, except to cause illness in some people: the appendix, for example.
 
2013-05-05 08:03:11 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.

You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.

Surprisingly, science works by looking at the evidence, and postulating a hypothesis from that evidence. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, then we can change it based on the evidence. Evolution has been changed a few times, but it has never ever been discarded based on the evidence. We can actually test in the lab and see with our own eyes evolution in action. There is no way anyone can ever say that with ID. It is just psudoscience and BS.


That's my point.  I was told that ID is not science because it is not falsifiable, so I asked how the theory of evolution is falsifiable, and I was told that if they were to find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that would falsify the theory.  I said no, they would just change the theory to fit the evidence.  And you agree. So if they can just change the theory to fit the evidence, how is the theory falsifiable?
 
2013-05-05 08:06:20 PM  
SkinnyHead:
i0.kym-cdn.com
/guys...
 
2013-05-05 08:06:36 PM  

Selena Luna: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

Without meeting even this first step, you never reach the second step, the step which makes it unscientific, the step which requires you to believe in an intelligent agency. And hypothesizing an unintelligent or evil agent is, likewise, not scientific because you can not falsify the existence of a hypothetical evil/idiot designer.

The same can be said of your car.  Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly.  Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?

That's proof that it was designed by  humans. Are you saying that everything in existence was designed by humans?

Actually, cars are very intelligently designed to make more money by being very inefficient and therefore requiring more parts. Unlike the human body, which has parts that are not only inefficient, but also serve no purpose, except to cause illness in some people: the appendix, for example.


The appendix is a bad example, it may actually be very useful holding helpful bacteria to repopulate the digestive tract after illness and other events that cause our helpful bacteria to die. It does however kill us if it breaks down of course.

The Eye, is a much better example of an organ with tons of flaws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7yAEh-PU4M  Take a look here, its a parody of the Dead Parrot Monty Python sketch, but with a human trying to return the eye to god because its defective.
 
2013-05-05 08:06:45 PM  
To be fair, he does eat da poo poos.
 
2013-05-05 08:09:37 PM  

eraser8: I don't have anybody on ignore. Frankly, I don't see the point.

I don't let what trolls write get me exercised (usually, I just skim over their nonsense) and, it's possible they might occasionally say something interesting or, at least, mildly entertaining. So why would I ignore them? I'm a grown man, not a delicate flower.


Interestingly enough, the people who usually say bullshiat like this are concern trolls, themselves.
 
2013-05-05 08:11:35 PM  

James F. Campbell: eraser8: I don't have anybody on ignore. Frankly, I don't see the point.

I don't let what trolls write get me exercised (usually, I just skim over their nonsense) and, it's possible they might occasionally say something interesting or, at least, mildly entertaining. So why would I ignore them? I'm a grown man, not a delicate flower.

Interestingly enough, the people who usually say bullshiat like this are concern trolls, themselves.


I know that you have me on ignore but I'll say it anyway: you suck, James F Campbell and even your momma thinks you are a dick
 
2013-05-05 08:12:13 PM  
There is simply no evidence that God made man in his own image.

There is a shiat ton of evidence that mankind has been making gods in their own image for thousands of years.

This current shiatstorm goes back to 1987 when Louisiana's first attempts to teach what was called "Young Earth Creationism" back ni those days was stymied by a SC decision. While that decision ended the teaching of YEC in public schools in LA it opened a back door for the un-science to be dressed up in scientific rags and reintroduced back into the class. Enter the proponents of Intelligent Design or IDiots for short.

And now here we are in 2013 arguing about exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Yeah, us!
 
2013-05-05 08:12:45 PM  
Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?
 
2013-05-05 08:12:51 PM  

SkinnyHead: I said that the theory of evolution postulates that all life evolved from some "ill-defined lower state," and you changed it to "less complex" organism. What's the difference? The theory of evolution has to start with some complexity already in existence, that's why evolutionists insist that the origin of life has very little to do with the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory cannot explain how that "less complex" organism got its complexity in the first place. So the theory picks up with the evolutionary machinery already up and running and goes from there


The exact same thing could be said of 'intelligent' design.  If God created all life, then who created God?

Scientific theories on the origins of life have possible solutions for this; creationism doesn't even bother to guess.
 
2013-05-05 08:13:00 PM  

James F. Campbell: eraser8: I don't have anybody on ignore. Frankly, I don't see the point.

I don't let what trolls write get me exercised (usually, I just skim over their nonsense) and, it's possible they might occasionally say something interesting or, at least, mildly entertaining. So why would I ignore them? I'm a grown man, not a delicate flower.

Interestingly enough, the people who usually say bullshiat like this are concern trolls, themselves.


Fine.  This is your chance to ignore me.

Take it.
 
2013-05-05 08:13:24 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: SkinnyHead: eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.

You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.

Falsified hypotheses being modified is a normal part of the scientific process. A hypothesis must only be discarded, not merely modified when either 1) it can no longer be sufficiently modified without becoming untestable, or 2) another hypothesis is developed which explains the data equally or better and is more parsimonious.

Every scientific hypothesis ever developed has been subsequently modified to some extent. This is a strength, not a weakness of the scientific method.


He also fails to understand that a theory is made up of multiple hypotheses, and when one is falsified, that does not mean that evidence has falsified the entire theory. Therefore, we test over and over and over to disprove hypotheses and if one ever does fail, we modify it, not to fit the data, but so that it can be retested. If it must be discarded, then we must test a different hypothesis.
 
2013-05-05 08:14:15 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Epoch_Zero: TheDarkSaintOfGin: Stile4aly: bugontherug: Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.

How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?

In fact I was. I have existed for millions of years and I have watched your species from the time you came down from the trees.

Prove me wrong.

Except that we, as a species, never were tree-dwelling peoples.  Homo Homo Sapiens (As opposed to Archaic Homo Sapiens) do, in any of our fossil records, have the adaptability to have lived in trees.  To find a possible common ancestor that was even both ground and tree-dwelling you have to go back MUCH farther.

FWIW
Our "closest" ancestor which lived both in trees and on the ground was Australopithecus afrerensis.

Forgot this:
[i2.kym-cdn.com image 680x487]


weird. I know a shiatload of Christians and not a one is a creationist as far as I know.
 
2013-05-05 08:14:51 PM  

spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?


who is Fark's favorite witch?
 
2013-05-05 08:15:14 PM  
SkinnyHead:
That's my point.  I was told that ID is not science because it is not falsifiable, so I asked how the theory of evolution is falsifiable, and I was told that if they were to find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that would falsify the theory.  I said no, they would just change the theory to fit the evidence.  And you agree. So if they can just change the theory to fit the evidence, how is the theory falsifiable?


All you have to do to falsify evolution is show that one part of it isn't true. So find a single case where the system doesn't work. Find me a Billion year old human, or a 1000 year old Velociraptor, or a single creatures that lives but doesn't have DNA, or any number of things. Evolution is actually falsifiable, and it's pretty telling that after all this time no one has managed to do that.
 
2013-05-05 08:15:49 PM  

SkinnyHead: Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.

You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.

Surprisingly, science works by looking at the evidence, and postulating a hypothesis from that evidence. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, then we can change it based on the evidence. Evolution has been changed a few times, but it has never ever been discarded based on the evidence. We can actually test in the lab and see with our own eyes evolution in action. There is no way anyone can ever say that with ID. It is just psudoscience and BS.

That's my point.  I was told that ID is not science because it is not falsifiable, so I asked how the theory of evolution is falsifiable, and I was told that if they were to find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that would falsify the theory.  I said no, they would just change the theory to fit the evidence.  And you agree. So if they can just change the theory to fit the evidence, how is the theory falsifiable?


Are you just being dense?

ID is not testable. You test a theory by doing experiments and looking at the data. If the data does not support your hypothesis, then you will need to change it to reflect what you found. Since there is no way to test ID, it is not falsifiable.
 
2013-05-05 08:16:43 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Epoch_Zero: TheDarkSaintOfGin: Stile4aly: bugontherug: Stile4aly: What was barred was the ability of a teacher to claim that the concept of a 6000 year old earth was something worth discussing in a science class.

How do you know it's not 6000 years old. Were you there?

In fact I was. I have existed for millions of years and I have watched your species from the time you came down from the trees.

Prove me wrong.

Except that we, as a species, never were tree-dwelling peoples.  Homo Homo Sapiens (As opposed to Archaic Homo Sapiens) do, in any of our fossil records, have the adaptability to have lived in trees.  To find a possible common ancestor that was even both ground and tree-dwelling you have to go back MUCH farther.

FWIW
Our "closest" ancestor which lived both in trees and on the ground was Australopithecus afrerensis.

Forgot this:
[i2.kym-cdn.com image 680x487]


Cheers mate.  Thank you.

/have a ton of notes of it from a Physical Anthropology course
//didn't feel like digging through them to get everything right so I didn't get jumped
 
2013-05-05 08:19:19 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: eraser8: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

Find human or cattle fossils mingled with trilobite fossils.  Easy peasy.  Or, to put a finer point on it, find Homo sapiens fossils mingled with  Australopithecus afarensis fossils.

You mean if that were to happen, Darwinists would give up the theory that all life evolved to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes, and would accept intelligent design?  No, they would just rework the model to make it fit the evidence.

Surprisingly, science works by looking at the evidence, and postulating a hypothesis from that evidence. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, then we can change it based on the evidence. Evolution has been changed a few times, but it has never ever been discarded based on the evidence. We can actually test in the lab and see with our own eyes evolution in action. There is no way anyone can ever say that with ID. It is just psudoscience and BS.

That's my point.  I was told that ID is not science because it is not falsifiable, so I asked how the theory of evolution is falsifiable, and I was told that if they were to find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that would falsify the theory.  I said no, they would just change the theory to fit the evidence.  And you agree. So if they can just change the theory to fit the evidence, how is the theory falsifiable?

Are you just being dense?

ID is not testable. You test a theory by doing experiments and looking at the data. If the data does not support your hypothesis, then you will need to change it to reflect what you found. Since there is no way to test ID, it is not falsifiable.


And by reflect what you found, I mean make it so you can test it again.
 
2013-05-05 08:22:01 PM  

culebra: To be fair, he does eat da poo poos.


t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-05 08:23:10 PM  

spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?


Christine O'Donnell?
 
2013-05-05 08:23:36 PM  

vygramul: Really? I'm first?

[witchdoctorobama.jpg]


Dayum, Fark be slipping. That shoulda been in the first 10 posts. Good save..

Obligatory pics are obligatory.
 
2013-05-05 08:25:25 PM  

Raharu: Selena Luna: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: RyogaM: There is no evidence that any part of any living animal was intelligently designed. It is a scientific fact that every animal, including humans, have parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. This would be evidence of unintelligent or evil designer. We almost lost a president because he inhaled a pretzel, for fark's sake.

Without meeting even this first step, you never reach the second step, the step which makes it unscientific, the step which requires you to believe in an intelligent agency. And hypothesizing an unintelligent or evil agent is, likewise, not scientific because you can not falsify the existence of a hypothetical evil/idiot designer.

The same can be said of your car.  Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly.  Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?

That's proof that it was designed by  humans. Are you saying that everything in existence was designed by humans?

Actually, cars are very intelligently designed to make more money by being very inefficient and therefore requiring more parts. Unlike the human body, which has parts that are not only inefficient, but also serve no purpose, except to cause illness in some people: the appendix, for example.

The appendix is a bad example, it may actually be very useful holding helpful bacteria to repopulate the digestive tract after illness and other events that cause our helpful bacteria to die. It does however kill us if it breaks down of course.

The Eye, is a much better example of an organ with tons of flaws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7yAEh-PU4M  Take a look here, its a parody of the Dead Parrot Monty Python sketch, but with a human trying to return the eye to god because its defective.


Having keratoconus, I should have thought of that too, though I didn't realize that they had actually found a use for the appendix. Nevertheless, the fact that it breaks down and there is little that can be done to prevent it...
 
2013-05-05 08:26:04 PM  

Walter Paisley: spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?

Christine O'Donnell?


She's not a witch just a sexually repressed Ladybug.

/Never really got all the love for Granny Palin but CO'D? Oh yeah, big time.
 
2013-05-05 08:29:03 PM  

quatchi: Christine O'Donnell?

She's not a witch just a sexually repressed Ladybug.


Weirdest boner, etc
 
2013-05-05 08:38:24 PM  

SkinnyHead: What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?


Go ask George Orwell.
 
2013-05-05 08:44:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.


Intelligent Design needs to be a scientific theory first before it be a scientific theory that can be taught in classrooms.
 
2013-05-05 08:45:35 PM  

WordyGrrl: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?

Riddle me this (because I'm bored).

Why should creationism be taught in a science class in a public school? It's not a scientifically valid theory.

"Because a theory is just a guess!"


az58332.vo.msecnd.netwww.pedaltonepublishing.comwww.hatfieldmusic.comstore.drumbum.comi43.tower.comedwintchilds.comia600804.us.archive.orgthechurchpianist.com
Oh, wow! Music hasn't been proven to actually exist! It's just a theeeeeeeory!!
 
2013-05-05 08:49:14 PM  

SkinnyHead: The falsifiable hypothesis of intelligent design is that living things were designed by an intelligent agency.


What agency? How? In what manner? Give some parameters. If you can't, then it's not a falsifiable hypothesis.

We cannot make the distinction of design if we cannot know the method of design, the definition of design, the manner or construction of design, or anything about the designer (up to and including adequate and intimate knowledge of how the designer designs things). To detect design, we must have an understanding of what non-design is. If a designer created everything, then what are we comparing his designs to? If we are not capable of tracking him down or studying his methods, how are we supposed to distinguish Mount Rushmore from an eroded crop of granite, pegmatite and metamorphic rock?

Moreover, the recognition of design is heavily predicated on the human standard of what design actually means. If design is divorced from the human condition, it becomes impossible to adequately recognize it . Things like SETI, for instance, are theoretically valid only because they apply to extraterrestrial intelligence - that is, because WE are living intelligent things ourselves, we have a generalized idea of what to look for when searching for OTHER living intelligent things in the cosmos. But we don't really have any theoretical framework for detecting and validating non-living intelligent non-things. What does that even mean?
 
2013-05-05 08:52:40 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Bermuda59: Please tell me why we spent billions to save the people in this state after Katrina and the BP oil spill?

Well for one, the amounts of material shipped via the Midwestern river network basically demands the existence of a major port at the mouth of the Mississippi. The U.S. economy would suffer massively without it.


As a geologist, the continual attempts to save New Orleans and keep its location permanent must annoy you though.
 
2013-05-05 08:53:28 PM  

SkinnyHead: Gyrfalcon: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

That's not what the "theory of evolution" postulates. The theories of the origin of life have very little to do with the theory of evolution as it relates to more complex organisms having evolved from less-complex ones. The fact that there are some things about how the process began that we don't as yet comprehend does NOT invalidate the entire process; therefore, just because science can't prove how the very first amoeba originated does NOT mean that humans are the result of Divine Intervention.

You're conflating scientific requirements of "proof" with legal chain-of-custody evidential "proof" and it doesn't work that way in science. Science allows for gaps in the chain as long as they can be filled by inference, because the times involved are so huge (millions of years, or even billions in some cases). The law does not. Stick to your own area of inexpertise.

I said that the theory of evolution postulates that all life evolved from some "ill-defined lower state," and you changed it to "less complex" organism.  What's the difference?  The theory of evolution has to start with some complexity already in existence, that's why evolutionists insist that the origin of life has very little to do with the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory cannot explain how that "less complex" organism got its complexity in the first place.  So the theory picks up with the evolutionary machinery already up and running and goes from there.


You are confused as to what the theory of evolution is.  Evolution, in that genetic changes in species lead to changes and eventual divergence in said species is a fact, much like that objects are drawn to the center of massive objects (i.e. gravity) is a fact.  Where the theory component comes in is the exact mechanism by which evolution occurs, much like the theory of gravitation.

The most well known of these theories is natural selection.  Another hypothesis put forth by evolution adherents is the single ancestor hypothesis, essentially that all present species evolved from a single, primordial organism.  There is a lot of evidence that supports both natural selection and a single ancestor.  These theoretical constructs have not been proven definitively, but also have not yet been falsified, which is why they are theories, but not laws of science.

So, disproving single ancestor, for example, does not disprove "evolution" itself, it merely demonstrates we were wrong about the origin of the world's divergent species, and that perhaps multiple organisms developed simultaneously (though unlikely given current observations).
 
2013-05-05 08:54:42 PM  

PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?


Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."
 
2013-05-05 08:55:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: The same can be said of your car. Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?


Cars don't replicate themselves. That's why we know they are designed.

Life DOES replicate itself, so needs no designer.
 
2013-05-05 08:57:16 PM  

Epoch_Zero: SkinnyHead:
[i0.kym-cdn.com image 680x680]
/guys...


I know you mean well, but that's more annoying than a dozen troll posts.
 
2013-05-05 08:57:22 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?


You don't seem to understand: The people who attack evolution the most are evolutionary scientists, because science is a methodology that entails constantly testing its assertions. Every single serious scientist at the forefront of their research does not accept evolution at face value like some belief system. They attack it, often with extreme prejudice, and it keeps withstanding their attacks (for 150 years). If there were holes in the theory, the millions of studies done on a weekly basis would have found them by now. Instead, predictions are made -- and then proven -- that correctly validate evolutionary assertions.

That's what makes a theory a "Theory".
 
2013-05-05 08:58:01 PM  

ox45tallboy: Wolf_Blitzer: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency

How does one scientifically test for this? I have yet to see one devised that can prove the hypothesis.

More importantly, there's no way of disproving it, which means it isn't science.

One could also say that if those scientists who advocated Intelligent Design were working on ways of proving or disproving their theory, rather that only advocating it as "belief" with no interest in testing it, the theory might gain at least some kind of acceptance in the scientific community.


That still wouldn't work. For Creationism (which Intelligent Design was ruled in a court of law to be nothing more than a warmed-over renaming of) to even qualify as an hypothesis, it must be falsifiable, which means that there must be a conceivable and feasible experiment that could be performed that, if it returned or failed to return certain predicted results, would disprove it.

Since the basic premise of Creationism is that God (or some unnamed Creator) created everything, we would need to determine just what it is in things that show that they are in fact created. To do this, we need a "control group" to test against. This "control group" would need to consist of known non-created things, so that we can analyze them to determine just what the difference is, and thus be able to analyze anything in the future and declare with confidence, "this here thing was created, and that other thing over there was not created, and here's how we can tell the difference."

But since Creationism states that everything (except the Creator Him/Her/Itself) was created, there can be no such control group of non-created things! Unless and until, that is, the Creator deigns to show up in a scientific lab and allow Him/Her/Itself to be so analyzed.
 
2013-05-05 08:58:03 PM  

ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."


Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.
 
2013-05-05 09:01:16 PM  

skullkrusher: spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?

who is Fark's favorite witch?


Come on e you have been here awhile
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-05 09:04:42 PM  

spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?


Elizabeth Montgomery did nude movies?

i.imgur.com

/in the 60s,70s, please
 
2013-05-05 09:05:12 PM  

PsiChick: ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."

Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.


Would it be not science if I offered a reward for a fossil proving human and dinosaur coexistence?  As long as the methods are sound and the evidence is properly studied, the reward did nothing other than provide the motivation for people to supply testable samples.

Randi isn't exactly doing that, but the greater point is that by offering a reward he's drawing attention to the fact that no one has claimed it.  It's public outreach with tiny science filling.
 
2013-05-05 09:06:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: I was told that ID is not science because it is not falsifiable, so I asked how the theory of evolution is falsifiable, and I was told that if they were to find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that would falsify the theory. I said no, they would just change the theory to fit the evidence


They haven't changed the theory. It's still the same theory: Over time, generations of life will change in adaptation to their environment. It was true when Darwin said it and it's true today. Just because we learned about DNA and the mechanisms of change (allele frequency, genes, etc.) does not alter the theory, it expands on its basic principle that "life changes over time". The only difference that new evidence has brought to us is HOW life changes.
 
2013-05-05 09:11:33 PM  
At this point, I am all for Zalgo coming so we can be rid of Skinnyhead.
 
2013-05-05 09:13:39 PM  

spongeboob: skullkrusher: spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?

who is Fark's favorite witch?

Come on e you have been here awhile
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 197x256]


I thought you were referring to a farkette. I'd enjoy seeing Ms O'Donnell nekkid
 
2013-05-05 09:15:50 PM  

Ishkur: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

You don't seem to understand: The people who attack evolution the most are evolutionary scientists, because science is a methodology that entails constantly testing its assertions. Every single serious scientist at the forefront of their research does not accept evolution at face value like some belief system. They attack it, often with extreme prejudice, and it keeps withstanding their attacks (for 150 years). If there were holes in the theory, the millions of studies done on a weekly basis would have found them by now. Instead, predictions are made -- and then proven -- that correctly validate evolutionary assertions.

That's what makes a theory a "Theory".


He's using the standard redirection counter to having to explain ID.  To them, they win by default unless you can prove evolution.  There is nothing you can say that will cause him to yield ground, because hes arguing for magic, and magic can and does explain everything.

You'd have to prove the very material nature of the universe itself before he'll yield on a single point.
 
2013-05-05 09:16:44 PM  

skozlaw: Zeppelininthesky: They are different. It also shows me that you really have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

He knows damn well what he's talking about. He does this on purpose because he's dishonest, not because he doesn't know any better.


It's like talking to a chimp jerking itself off in a mirror.
 
2013-05-05 09:17:25 PM  

Ishkur: SkinnyHead: I was told that ID is not science because it is not falsifiable, so I asked how the theory of evolution is falsifiable, and I was told that if they were to find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that would falsify the theory. I said no, they would just change the theory to fit the evidence

They haven't changed the theory. It's still the same theory: Over time, generations of life will change in adaptation to their environment. It was true when Darwin said it and it's true today. Just because we learned about DNA and the mechanisms of change (allele frequency, genes, etc.) does not alter the theory, it expands on its basic principle that "life changes over time". The only difference that new evidence has brought to us is HOW life changes.


Skinnyhead doesn't understand how you can falsify evolution because he is unimaginative. It's like the Big Bang. "You know, if the big bang really happened, there should be x amount of background radiation. Let's check." Boom! x amount of background radiation. Despite it happening 14 billion years ago, they were able to predict something about NOW that would help prove it, and the prediction was found to be true. Similar predictions can be made about evolution.
 
2013-05-05 09:18:42 PM  

Gyrfalcon: skozlaw: Zeppelininthesky: They are different. It also shows me that you really have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

He knows damn well what he's talking about. He does this on purpose because he's dishonest, not because he doesn't know any better.

It's like talking to a chimp jerking itself off in a mirror.


Now I know what I'm goimg to do tomorrow.
 
2013-05-05 09:20:47 PM  

Antimatter: He's using the standard redirection counter to having to explain ID. To them, they win by default unless you can prove evolution. There is nothing you can say that will cause him to yield ground, because hes arguing for magic, and magic can and does explain everything.


I'm well aware of it. It's a fallacy Creationists use constantly: That disproving A automatically proves B. It's the same Apologetics bullshiat going around in circles.
 
2013-05-05 09:23:53 PM  

PsiChick: ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."

Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.


Umm, sorry, but I'm pretty sure you're a nutter. So, you know, I am not going to waste my time trying to reason with you. Go on back to believing in gibberish, it's a free country, but I'm pretty sure the witch doctor is wrapped tighter than you.
 
2013-05-05 09:24:15 PM  
Louisiana makes Texas look progressive.
 
2013-05-05 09:25:07 PM  

Ishkur: Antimatter: He's using the standard redirection counter to having to explain ID. To them, they win by default unless you can prove evolution. There is nothing you can say that will cause him to yield ground, because hes arguing for magic, and magic can and does explain everything.

I'm well aware of it. It's a fallacy Creationists use constantly: That disproving A automatically proves B. It's the same Apologetics bullshiat going around in circles.


Right, to them, magic is the default, so you have to disprove them, and they win by default if you don't.  They have lost the argument on so many points over the last few thousand years as more and more magical things were explained to be natural, that they cannot stand the idea of losing this one.
 
2013-05-05 09:25:40 PM  

vygramul: Skinnyhead doesn't understand how you can falsify evolution because he is unimaginative.


Falsifying evolution is as hard as falsifying gravity because it's so farking obvious. He'd have to prove that every species in the world does not change or adapt to its environment. We've witnessed that happening! Hell, we've directed it with animal husbandry, evolving specific traits for our needs over thousands of years.

What did he think was going on when we did that?
 
2013-05-05 09:28:55 PM  

TheDarkSaintOfGin: ox45tallboy: jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.

FYI, the parents weren't happy about it, and the father stated the child would not be attending the school the following year.

Link

Thank you for that.  I was hoping it was faked.  I have now lost all hope.

/last shred of faith in humanity=gone


www.sadmuffin.net
 
2013-05-05 09:29:08 PM  

Ishkur: vygramul: Skinnyhead doesn't understand how you can falsify evolution because he is unimaginative.

Falsifying evolution is as hard as falsifying gravity because it's so farking obvious. He'd have to prove that every species in the world does not change or adapt to its environment. We've witnessed that happening! Hell, we've directed it with animal husbandry, evolving specific traits for our needs over thousands of years.

What did he think was going on when we did that?


It doesn't prove that it was evolution and furthermore.
 
2013-05-05 09:30:52 PM  

Gyrfalcon: It doesn't prove that it was evolution and furthermore.


We turned the grey wolf into the farking chihuahua and he doesn't think that's evolution?
 
2013-05-05 09:32:14 PM  

skullkrusher: spongeboob: skullkrusher: spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?

who is Fark's favorite witch?

Come on e you have been here awhile
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 197x256]

I thought you were referring to a farkette. I'd enjoy seeing Ms O'Donnell nekkid


Something we can agree on.


/I remember there being Fark headlines back in 2010 calling O'Donnell Fark's favorite witch but now I can't find any of them
 
2013-05-05 09:32:31 PM  

Erix: PsiChick: ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."

Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.

Would it be not science if I offered a reward for a fossil proving human and dinosaur coexistence?  As long as the methods are sound and the evidence is properly studied, the reward did nothing other than provide the motivation for people to supply testable samples.

Randi isn't exactly doing that, but the greater point is that by offering a reward he's drawing attention to the fact that no one has claimed it.  It's public outreach with tiny science filling.


The bold part is the really big point.

To start with (warning: Nerding ahead), 'psychic' is a cultural term. The experiences of, say, visions, are a human universal--the  an da shealladh of Scotland, the drawings of Australian aborigines, etc.--and that goes for quite a few other 'psychic' experiences. Now, those experiences  have been proven real. The University of College London and University of Granada both linked synthesia to reading and working with auras; this Italian study shows evidence that ESP, as a phenomenon, occurs at a rate higher than chance. We know what parts of the brain light up during the experiences of mediums. There's even a study of Scottish seers (the  an da shealladh I mentioned) showing an inheretence pattern  consistent with a Mendelian gene. So we can safely say that the  physical side of it, well, you have to be a farking idiot to ignore that something's happening.

So, if Randi were putting out a public-service stunt to tell people about evidence, well, that'd still be anti-ethical since he's pretending it's an experiment as hard as he can...but as it is? That's a hell of a lot of blue links on my side, and a guy who  can change the rules of his 'experiment' whenever he wants and has a million dollars at stake on the other.

I know which one I wouldn't submit as a paper.
 
2013-05-05 09:33:58 PM  
ghare:

Umm, sorry, but I'm pretty sure you're a nutter. So, you know, I am not going to waste my time trying to reason with you. Go on back to believing in gibberish, it's a free country, but I'm pretty sure the witch doctor is wrapped tighter than you.

Scroll up and read the blue links I posted. If I'm actually a nutter, you should be able to find something scientifically wrong with the methodology of any of those papers.

I haven't been, but hey, what do I know, I just actually read the things...
 
2013-05-05 09:34:55 PM  

SkinnyHead: The same can be said of your car. Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?


Skinnyhead's version of God: intellectually on the same level as the guy who designed the Pinto.
 
2013-05-05 09:34:59 PM  

PsiChick: Erix: PsiChick: ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."

Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.

Would it be not science if I offered a reward for a fossil proving human and dinosaur coexistence?  As long as the methods are sound and the evidence is properly studied, the reward did nothing other than provide the motivation for people to supply testable samples.

Randi isn't exactly doing that, but the greater point is that by offering a reward he's drawing attention to the fact that no one has claimed it.  It's public outreach with tiny science filling.

The bold part is the really big point.

To start with (warning: Nerding ahead), 'psychic' is a cultural term. The experiences of, say, visions, are a human universal--the  an da shealladh of Scotland, the drawings of Australian aborigines, etc.--and that goes for quite a few other 'psychic' experiences. Now, those experiences  have been proven real. The University of College London and University of Granada both linked synthesia to reading and working with auras; this Italian study shows evidence that ESP, as a phenomenon, occurs at a rate higher than chance. We know what parts of the brain light up during the experiences of mediums. There's even a study of Scottish seers (the  an da shealladh I mentioned) showing an inheretence pattern  consistent with a Mendelian gene. So we can safely say that the  physical side of it, well, you have to be a farking idiot to ignore that something's happening.

So, if Randi were putting out a public-service stunt to tell people about evidence, well, that'd still be anti-ethical since he's pretending it's an experiment as hard as he can...but as it is? That's a hell of a lot of blue links on my side, and a guy who  can change the rules of his 'experiment' whenever he wants and has a million dollars at stake on the other.

I know which one I wouldn't submit as a paper.


If someone were really psychic, wouldn't they know when and how Randi planned to change the rules, and thus be able to avoid the pitfalls?
 
2013-05-05 09:36:29 PM  

PsiChick: Scroll up and read the blue links I posted. If I'm actually a nutter, you should be able to find something scientifically wrong with the methodology of any of those papers.


I thought "nutter" was the technical term for Aspies, is it not?

/you and I oughta hang out and go to Shambhala or something...
 
2013-05-05 09:37:39 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: If someone were really psychic, wouldn't they know when and how Randi planned to change the rules, and thus be able to avoid the pitfalls?


Why would a psychic admit they're psychic?

Warren Buffet and Daniel Negreanu are doing just fine, thank you....
 
2013-05-05 09:42:03 PM  

Ishkur: Gyrfalcon: It doesn't prove that it was evolution and furthermore.

We turned the grey wolf into the farking chihuahua and he doesn't think that's evolution?


THAT is a travesty.
 
2013-05-05 09:46:49 PM  

Ishkur: SkinnyHead: The same can be said of your car. Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?

Cars don't replicate themselves. That's why we know they are designed.

Life DOES replicate itself, so needs no designer.


That's an interesting observation.  But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself?  It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution.  So the ability to replicate does require a designer.
 
2013-05-05 09:52:21 PM  

skullkrusher: I'd enjoy seeing Ms O'Donnell nekkid


How about some ladybug cosplay?

www.gadailynews.com
 
2013-05-05 09:54:20 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: I'd enjoy seeing Ms O'Donnell nekkid

How about some ladybug cosplay?

[www.gadailynews.com image 306x818]


I'd take it
 
2013-05-05 09:55:03 PM  

SkinnyHead: It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution


Yes, it can be explained by evolution, because the ability to replicate is in genetic code.
 
2013-05-05 09:55:31 PM  
I love Louisiana.

/St. Louisan
 
2013-05-05 09:56:42 PM  

SkinnyHead: So the ability to replicate does require a designer.


The existence of a designer requires a designer.  The existence of a designer designer requires a designer.  The existence of a designer designer designer requires a designer. The existence of a designer designer  designer designer requires a designer. The existence of a designer designer designer designer designer requires a designer......
 
2013-05-05 09:58:39 PM  

COMALite J: WordyGrrl: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?

Riddle me this (because I'm bored).

Why should creationism be taught in a science class in a public school? It's not a scientifically valid theory.

"Because a theory is just a guess!"

[az58332.vo.msecnd.net image 432x575][www.pedaltonepublishing.com image 350x457][www.hatfieldmusic.com image 173x216][store.drumbum.com image 139x180][i43.tower.com image 200x263][edwintchilds.com image 200x267][ia600804.us.archive.org image 368x500][thechurchpianist.com image 313x400]
Oh, wow! Music hasn't been proven to actually exist! It's just a theeeeeeeory!!


"The laws of physics are not God's laws! therefore... I can fly!"
/Tee hee hee
 
2013-05-05 09:59:40 PM  

Ishkur: PsiChick: Scroll up and read the blue links I posted. If I'm actually a nutter, you should be able to find something scientifically wrong with the methodology of any of those papers.

I thought "nutter" was the technical term for Aspies, is it not?

/you and I oughta hang out and go to Shambhala or something...


Well, yes, but I  can recognize the connotations...:p

/Yeah, we should.
//Or watch Big Bang Theory or something.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: If someone were really psychic, wouldn't they know when and how Randi planned to change the rules, and thus be able to avoid the pitfalls?


Which psychic talent are they displaying? Synthesia\auras? How would that help? Visions? Maybe, but all reports indicate they're uncontrollable. ESP? Most likely, but they'd be spying on Randi most of the time...

/See, the people who claim psychics know everything are the ones who  aren't psychic.
 
2013-05-05 09:59:52 PM  
Has....Has this somehow morphed into a Christine O'Donnell thread?


Awesome!


ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-05 10:02:36 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: I'm going to be very unhappy if I find that picture is not an April Fool's Day thing, which had been my guess until now.


I have no doubt it's real.  "Were you there?" is a big Ken Ham thing.  The idea that "were you there" could also apply to literally everything older than 100 years or so seems lost on him.
 
2013-05-05 10:03:44 PM  

Ishkur: vygramul: Skinnyhead doesn't understand how you can falsify evolution because he is unimaginative.

Falsifying evolution is as hard as falsifying gravity because it's so farking obvious. He'd have to prove that every species in the world does not change or adapt to its environment. We've witnessed that happening! Hell, we've directed it with animal husbandry, evolving specific traits for our needs over thousands of years.

What did he think was going on when we did that?


Intelligent design. After all, it was our intelligent hand at work.
 
2013-05-05 10:04:05 PM  

SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.


Stop, stupid.
 
2013-05-05 10:04:29 PM  

Apos: Has....Has this somehow morphed into a Christine O'Donnell thread?

Awesome!

[ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com image 400x240]


media.tumblr.com

"I'm not a witch," my ass...
 
2013-05-05 10:05:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution

Yes, it can be explained by evolution, because the ability to replicate is in genetic code.


It is?  How did it get there?
 
2013-05-05 10:09:08 PM  
Oo ee oo ah ah ting tang walla walla bing bang

/You're welcome.
 
2013-05-05 10:09:55 PM  

Apos: Has....Has this somehow morphed into a Christine O'Donnell thread?


Awesome!


It's some weird Christine O'Donnell slash SkinnyHead slash psychics are real to me damn it thread. So it's Fark, basically.
 
2013-05-05 10:10:11 PM  

SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.


What do you mean "acquired"? Life has always been able to replicate. If it didn't, it wouldn't be life. In fact, one of the very definitions of life is the ability to replicate. So you can't divorce the two and say one existed without the other (for very long). Life is replication, and replication is life.

Secondly, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two entirely separate things. The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency over time. That's all it does. It does not specify why this mechanism is there, is just explains how it works.

Now, as for how life got to be life in the beginning, its a fascinating story. Allow me to explain (go get some coffee):

Physics, chemistry and biology are what make life. In that order: You need the physics to attract the elements, the chemistry to form the molecules, and the biology to combine the compounds. Because of this, certain things are always going to happen in the Universe because of physical laws. For instance, all snowflakes are going to form hexagrams because of the triangular shape of water molecules (H2O).

Much like the structure of the snowflake, life also has very few options. Sure, we see unlimited diversity all around us, but it's all obedient to a single basic form, like fingerprints. With all the elements and all the molecules and all the possible choices in the Universe, when it comes down to it, life only has one chance to exist. The secret is carbon.

All life on Earth is carbon-based. Why carbon?

Well, let's break this down statistically. Hydrogen and Helium make up about 98% of the Universe. If we want to argue for random chance creating life, we should all be gaseous entities. But we're not and probably for good reason. Hydrogen is highly flammable and only useful for igniting stars, not life (its simplistic structure makes it an excellent bonding agent but more on that later). And Helium is a noble gas and is therefore inert to the complex chemical reactions required for life as we know it. So no dice there.

Oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, neon, iron, silicon, magnesium and sulfur make up about 99.999% of that other 2%. If life can't be made from these basic ingredients, there is absolutely no chance with any heavier elements because they're far too rare to occur in any abundant capacity favorable toward life. So let's work with these.

Neon is also a noble gas, so you can nix that idea. Of the rest, only carbon and silicon are tetravalent, meaning they bond really well with other elements to the point where they can form long, complex chemical chains that might eventually sort of kind of maybe exhibit some characteristics that one might conceivably hesitate to consider almost proto-life. Per se.

Wait - carbon and silicon? So where is the silicon-based life? Especially since silicon is about 135 times more abundant on Earth than carbon. Statistically speaking silicon should have been the runaway winner. There should be a separate, affluent domain of silicon organisms lurking about, vying for foodstuffs. Why are there not any funky silicon-based plants?

Well, as it turns out, silicon just isn't very good at making the compounds that beget the acids that beget the peptides that beget the proteins that beget the enzymes that beget the nucleotides that beget the polynucleotides that beget the RNA that beget the DNA that beget the chromosomes that beget the nucleolus that beget the nuclei that beget the cells that beget the life that beget the multi-cellular life that beget the complex multi-cellular life that beget the intelligent complex multi-cellular life that beget the books with lots of begets in them.

For one thing, silicon is almost 2.5 times heavier than carbon. Its size and density makes it cumbersome for forming long, complex chemical chains required for life. So although the bonds are strong, they frequently break apart. Silicon is like the fat kid on the school playground who makes friends easily but none of his relationships last very long (usually after a ride on the teeter-totter). Carbon is the popular kid - the Ferris Bueller of atoms. It can bond well with damn near anything, especially other carbon.

The other essential ingredients to life are hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. With carbon they make the Big Four. When carbon bonds with oxygen it creates gases called oxides which are really useful for interacting with other chemical bondy things. It does the same thing with hydrogen too - the gases are called alkanes. And with nitrogen it makes nitryls and imines and other gaseous stuff.

Gases are really useful for complex chemical reactions and carbon makes this easy to do. When silicon bonds with the other three elements it makes hydrosilanes, nitrides and quartz (with oxygen), which is a rock that just sits there not doing anything fun.

Probably the most important advantage carbon has over silicon is how it reacts to water. Carbon chains are unaffected in water. Silicon chains dissolve. This is crucial because a water-based medium offers less stress to biochemical processes than a dry one. In other words, gravity is strong, land is hard, and atmospheres don't help atoms get together. If life is going to get invented it needs the freewheeling, swash-buckling liberation of an aquatic 3D environment to work its magic. It's a good thing our planet has plenty of it.

So there you go. Carbon is lighter, more robust, it makes complex longer-lasting chains, it makes gases with other elements and it loves the water. Silicon is heavy, inefficient, hates the water and everything it bonds with turns to hard, lifeless rock.

We have now narrowed down the complexity of a random series of events to one possible atom that is extremely adept at chemical bonds all by itself without anyone's help. There are, of course, hundreds more steps to go, but just getting to this point through physics instead of divine interference is pretty impressive.

So let's whistle through this process as fast as possible and get to the point. During the tumultuous period of early Earth known as the Archean era, complex carbon chemical chains constantly banged into other complex carbon chemical chains. Sometimes nothing happened and sometimes they stuck together, producing organic acids. Sometimes, due to planetary bombardment or other factors, heavy pressure and heat fused these acids together to create peptides. These peptides were simple polymers (repeating molecular structures, usually in some elegant pattern like a lattice) and some of them gathered more organic acids to extend their patterns, in effect copying themselves. No one told them to do this. They were compelled to do it through the physical forces and properties of the Universe. In fact, they can't not do it. They're just doing what molecules do.

The more complicated the copies got, the less accurate the copying became. The laws of physics acted like a sifter of the copying process - the weak copies broke apart and didn't do anything while the strong copies assembled more acids and continued copying.

Once self-replication was mastered, everything thereafter was simple refinement and improvement: The peptides grew larger and folded into globular or fibrous patterns to become proteins. Some proteins were used as enzymes to catalyze the chemical process of replication, improving efficiency. The accumulating size of these proteins attracted lipids (hydrophobic fat molecules) for use as insular membranes against harm. In time, these became vesicles and then hardened, cellular walls. This permitted the formation of symbiotic structures within to improve replication and energy consumption, including vacuoles, centrioles, lysosomes, nucleic acid and ribosomes. These were the first proto-cells.

This is not something that just happened, suddenly and unexpectedly, with no precursor. This was an arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years and needed a lot of favorable conditions to progress through its myriad stages, including an abundant level of carbon, a watery environment, lots of heat and pressure and maybe even an orbital bombardment period or two. That always helps.

The history of life on Earth - which for 90% of living history was smaller than the naked eye - is largely the history of changes in our atmosphere's composition due to chemical reactions within these self-replicating microscopic engines. These things did nothing but consume sunlight and carbon and produce oxygen as a waste product for billions of years. The same oxygen we breathe today.

Our understanding of the origin of life is far from complete. There are still a lot of things we don't quite understand about how it all fits together. Really, none of this is as far-fetched as it sounds. The thing you must understand that it was not some crazy roll of the dice that purposed life - it happened naturally and inevitably. These chemical chains started forming not from some insurmountable cosmic fluke but because they preferred to. The simple physics of the Universe and its properties compelled these molecules to form together and we are the happy result of that.

Life exists because it's impossible for it not to exist.
 
2013-05-05 10:10:22 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution

Yes, it can be explained by evolution, because the ability to replicate is in genetic code.

It is?  How did it get there?


Do you really need DNA replication explained to you? Or genetic mutation? I'm sure in real life you're smarter than that.
 
2013-05-05 10:10:23 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.


bindlestiff2600: FirstNationalBastard: Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.

bing bang
walla walla

they are going about it the wrong way
(seriously)

use this ill written junk
to "teach the controversy"   of say
dianetics
voo doo (hey we already got one convert)
kama sutra
the invisible flying spegetti monster

then after that gets outrage
point at those politico's as having brought in those "false religions" on purpose


Note to self. Make even a LITTLE attempt to read the thread before making a joke.
 
2013-05-05 10:12:32 PM  
SkinnyHead:  So the ability to replicate does require a designer.

Why?

/Channeling my inner three-year-old
 
2013-05-05 10:13:58 PM  

vygramul: Intelligent design. After all, it was our intelligent hand at work.


If we were really intelligent designing wild animals into pets, couldn't we have done it in one generation instead of, like, a thousand?
 
2013-05-05 10:14:14 PM  
Turns out apparently he did need it explained to him. Bra-vo  Ishkur. Bravo.

.
 
2013-05-05 10:15:25 PM  
Guys, you're arguing with a someone who apparently makes a living out of pretending not to know the meanings of basic concepts like "theory", "falsify" and "logic". There's got to be a better way to spend a Sunday evening. Go hug your children or something.
 
2013-05-05 10:16:42 PM  
Was Skinnyhead always Bevet's understudy, or is he just trying to take up the slack?
 
2013-05-05 10:17:51 PM  

Biological Ali: Guys, you're arguing with a someone who apparently makes a living out of pretending not to know the meanings of basic concepts like "theory", "falsify" and "logic". There's got to be a better way to spend a Sunday evening. Go hug your children or something.


I dunno, I quite enjoyed Ishkur's explanation of the beginning of life.
 
2013-05-05 10:26:58 PM  

WordyGrrl: "The laws of physics are not God's laws! therefore... I can fly!"
/Tee hee hee


Like Bedward the Flying Preacher?

http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=vLUPNXTZzkk
 
2013-05-05 10:27:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Biological Ali: Guys, you're arguing with a someone who apparently makes a living out of pretending not to know the meanings of basic concepts like "theory", "falsify" and "logic". There's got to be a better way to spend a Sunday evening. Go hug your children or something.

I dunno, I quite enjoyed Ishkur's explanation of the beginning of life.


I've had Ishkurflagged as one of the best explainers on Fark for a long time. A Moderator should come and move his post to the front of the first page so more people can read it.
 
2013-05-05 10:28:11 PM  

Ishkur: vygramul: Intelligent design. After all, it was our intelligent hand at work.

If we were really intelligent designing wild animals into pets, couldn't we have done it in one generation instead of, like, a thousand?


Not yet.
 
2013-05-05 10:32:06 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution

Yes, it can be explained by evolution, because the ability to replicate is in genetic code.

It is?  How did it get there?


God, of course.

I wanna know how the hell God got there.
 
2013-05-05 10:33:15 PM  
cameroncrazy1984: Biological Ali: Guys, you're arguing with a someone who apparently makes a living out of pretending not to know the meanings of basic concepts like "theory", "falsify" and "logic". There's got to be a better way to spend a Sunday evening. Go hug your children or something.

I dunno, I quite enjoyed Ishkur's explanation of the beginning of life.

Yeah, it quite made the thread for me.

The Christine O'Donnell pics sealed the deal, of course.
 
2013-05-05 10:33:53 PM  

PsiChick: ...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.


The Nobel prize winners would like a word...
 
2013-05-05 10:34:55 PM  

Ishkur: vygramul: Intelligent design. After all, it was our intelligent hand at work.

If we were really intelligent designing wild animals into pets, couldn't we have done it in one generation instead of, like, a thousand?


Of course. I was joking.
 
2013-05-05 10:37:30 PM  

HighZoolander: PsiChick: ...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

The Nobel prize winners would like a word...


...Yes. The Nobel Prize is an  experiment, intended to prove or disprove a thesis.
 
2013-05-05 10:40:39 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Biological Ali: Guys, you're arguing with a someone who apparently makes a living out of pretending not to know the meanings of basic concepts like "theory", "falsify" and "logic". There's got to be a better way to spend a Sunday evening. Go hug your children or something.

I dunno, I quite enjoyed Ishkur's explanation of the beginning of life.


It certainly was very good - I just fear that the effort is being wasted on people who (like the few stragglers left in this thread) already have a basic grasp of the relevant science and so will merely find it interesting, as opposed to those who genuinely need to have their minds changed.
 
2013-05-05 10:43:46 PM  

SkinnyHead: Ishkur: SkinnyHead: The same can be said of your car. Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?

Cars don't replicate themselves. That's why we know they are designed.

Life DOES replicate itself, so needs no designer.

That's an interesting observation.  But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself?  It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution.  So the ability to replicate does require a designer.


No it does not. Who designed the designer?
 
2013-05-05 10:45:10 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution

Yes, it can be explained by evolution, because the ability to replicate is in genetic code.

It is?  How did it get there?

God, of course.

I wanna know how the hell God got there.


John 1:1(maybe it's how God *gets* there)
 
2013-05-05 10:45:46 PM  

Ishkur: SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.

What do you mean "acquired"? Life has always been able to replicate. If it didn't, it wouldn't be life. In fact, one of the very definitions of life is the ability to replicate. So you can't divorce the two and say one existed without the other (for very long). Life is replication, and replication is life.

Secondly, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two entirely separate things. The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency over time. That's all it does. It does not specify why this mechanism is there, is just explains how it works...


Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.  Therefore, evolution cannot explain all of the complexities of life.

And your story about abiogenesis -- "the arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years" -- is very interesting.  Doesn't an "arduous, painstaking process" imply forethought and deliberation in working toward a goal, as if it were the work of an intelligent agent?
 
2013-05-05 10:46:02 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Was Skinnyhead always Bevet's understudy, or is he just trying to take up the slack?


Well, aside from being more "intelligent design" oriented rather than a pure young-earth creationist, pretty much. He's been doing this sort of shtick for several years at least.
 
2013-05-05 10:46:23 PM  

eraser8: Zeppelininthesky: I think that we should make anyone who is up for any public office, or anyone who would be in charge of education to take a test. It would be a simple test. "Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old"? "Do you believe that Creationism is a scientific theory"? "Do you believe that what is in the Bible is literal truth"? If they answer yes to any of those questions, then they are not eligible for that job.

I'm pretty sure you'd need a constitutional amendment to make that happen...at least so that it sticks.

And, how likely is that?  Think, for a moment, how stupid the average person is.


Then, as George Carlin suggested, consider that half the people in the country are stupider than that.
 
2013-05-05 10:46:40 PM  

PsiChick: To start with (warning: Nerding ahead), 'psychic' is a cultural term. The experiences of, say, visions, are a human universal--the  an da shealladh of Scotland, the drawings of Australian aborigines, etc.--and that goes for quite a few other 'psychic' experiences. Now, those experiences  have been proven real. The University of College London and University of Granada both linked synthesia to reading and working with auras; this Italian study shows evidence that ESP, as a phenomenon, occurs at a rate higher than chance. We know what parts of the brain light up during the experiences of mediums. There's even a study of Scottish seers (the  an da shealladh I mentioned) showing an inheretence pattern  consistent with a Mendelian gene. So we can safely say that the  physical side of it, well, you have to be a farking idiot to ignore that something's happening.


It's really not that safe to say anything about it...

re just the brain imaging work, you might find this interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/Neuromania-limits-science-Paolo-Legrenzi/dp/01 99 591342
 
2013-05-05 10:47:49 PM  

Biological Ali: It certainly was very good - I just fear that the effort is being wasted on people who (like the few stragglers left in this thread) already have a basic grasp of the relevant science and so will merely find it interesting, as opposed to those who genuinely need to have their minds changed.


It won't change his mind. But that wasn't its intent.

He asks the question because he thinks there is no scientific answer (therefore God). My response wasn't to prove him wrong, it was to demonstrate that the answer exists whether he wants to accept it or not.
 
2013-05-05 10:49:06 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.  Therefore, evolution cannot explain all of the complexities of life.


Your 'God of the gaps' gets smaller everyday.

That noted, religion and science are not a zero sum game.
 
2013-05-05 10:50:00 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.


Uh, it's actually explained by evolution in this very thread.
 
2013-05-05 10:53:03 PM  

PsiChick: HighZoolander: PsiChick: ...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

The Nobel prize winners would like a word...

...Yes. The Nobel Prize is an  experiment, intended to prove or disprove a thesis.


It's a prize for a successful experiment. But setting that aside, how is a contest necessarily not scientific? Prize money historically was often offered by governments for the solution to difficult problems - do you think those results are somehow tainted and/or not scientific? (see e.g., Longitude)
 
2013-05-05 10:54:10 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.


That's because evolution is not explaining the ability to replicate. For that you need biochemistry.

Evolution is explaining this:

www.ishkur.com

If you want to disprove evolution, disprove this.

SkinnyHead: And your story about abiogenesis -- "the arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years" -- is very interesting. Doesn't an "arduous, painstaking process" imply forethought and deliberation in working toward a goal, as if it were the work of an intelligent agent?


No.

What "intelligent" agent takes a billion years to create a protein molecule?

/Stupid, Slow and Lazy Design.
 
2013-05-05 10:54:36 PM  

HighZoolander: PsiChick: HighZoolander: PsiChick: ...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

The Nobel prize winners would like a word...

...Yes. The Nobel Prize is an  experiment, intended to prove or disprove a thesis.

It's a prize for a successful experiment. But setting that aside, how is a contest necessarily not scientific? Prize money historically was often offered by governments for the solution to difficult problems - do you think those results are somehow tainted and/or not scientific? (see e.g., Longitude)


Or the X-Prize. Though that's not a government.
 
2013-05-05 10:55:18 PM  

SkinnyHead: Ishkur: SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.

What do you mean "acquired"? Life has always been able to replicate. If it didn't, it wouldn't be life. In fact, one of the very definitions of life is the ability to replicate. So you can't divorce the two and say one existed without the other (for very long). Life is replication, and replication is life.

Secondly, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two entirely separate things. The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency over time. That's all it does. It does not specify why this mechanism is there, is just explains how it works...

Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.  Therefore, evolution cannot explain all of the complexities of life.

And your story about abiogenesis -- "the arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years" -- is very interesting.  Doesn't an "arduous, painstaking process" imply forethought and deliberation in working toward a goal, as if it were the work of an intelligent agent?


Therefore, you are not paying attention. They are two totally separate theories.
 
2013-05-05 10:56:28 PM  
Why are you guys arguing with a known troll-alt?
 
2013-05-05 10:57:03 PM  

Ishkur: It won't change his mind. But that wasn't its intent.

He asks the question because he thinks there is no scientific answer (therefore God). My response wasn't to prove him wrong, it was to demonstrate that the answer exists whether he wants to accept it or not.


See, I'm not so sure about that. My suspicion is that guys like him "accept" the right answers all along (or at the very least, don't really care about what the answer is), and that their actual goal is not to advance the comically inept arguments they're making or the silly beliefs they're purporting to hold, but rather, to simply get off on wasting the time of strangers on the internet.
 
2013-05-05 10:57:43 PM  

ShawnDoc: Why are you guys arguing with a known troll-alt?


Isn't that what the internet is for?
 
2013-05-05 11:01:21 PM  

ShawnDoc: Why are you guys arguing with a known troll-alt?


Because there is no BIE thread?

/at least for liters
 
2013-05-05 11:04:22 PM  

Biological Ali: See, I'm not so sure about that. My suspicion is that guys like him "accept" the right answers all along (or at the very least, don't really care about what the answer is), and that their actual goal is not to advance the comically inept arguments they're making or the silly beliefs they're purporting to hold, but rather, to simply get off on wasting the time of strangers on the internet.


I have him farkied as a freeper, from all the politics threads over the years.. So I don't think he's a troll, I think he's just posting what Republicans Actually Believe. It's pretty consistent with their ethos.
 
2013-05-05 11:05:07 PM  
Just because this thread needs more Christine:
i1243.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-05 11:06:55 PM  
Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.
 
2013-05-05 11:10:29 PM  

HighZoolander: PsiChick: HighZoolander: PsiChick: ...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

The Nobel prize winners would like a word...

...Yes. The Nobel Prize is an  experiment, intended to prove or disprove a thesis.

It's a prize for a successful experiment. But setting that aside, how is a contest necessarily not scientific? Prize money historically was often offered by governments for the solution to difficult problems - do you think those results are somehow tainted and/or not scientific? (see e.g., Longitude)


What's the difference between a science fair and an individual experiment? That's the difference between what you're talking about and what Randi's doing. Not to mention the huge amount of fame he generates for the experiment continuing, the way he would be treated by skeptics if he was 'tricked by psychics', etc...

HighZoolander: PsiChick: To start with (warning: Nerding ahead), 'psychic' is a cultural term. The experiences of, say, visions, are a human universal--the  an da shealladh of Scotland, the drawings of Australian aborigines, etc.--and that goes for quite a few other 'psychic' experiences. Now, those experiences  have been proven real. The University of College London and University of Granada both linked synthesia to reading and working with auras; this Italian study shows evidence that ESP, as a phenomenon, occurs at a rate higher than chance. We know what parts of the brain light up during the experiences of mediums. There's even a study of Scottish seers (the  an da shealladh I mentioned) showing an inheretence pattern  consistent with a Mendelian gene. So we can safely say that the  physical side of it, well, you have to be a farking idiot to ignore that something's happening.

It's really not that safe to say anything about it...

re just the brain imaging work, you might find this interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/Neuromania-limits-science-Paolo-Legrenzi/dp/01 99 591342


So you're arguing that, because we see a physical change in the brain when these experiences appear..we're putting too much faith in the scanning equipment because it only shows us which areas of the brain are lighting up, and not specific responses?

Riiight.

/That's  still a physical reaction, genius--psychics are  still experiencing physical stimuli that do not fall under the psychological definition of insanity.
 
2013-05-05 11:12:05 PM  

SkinnyHead: Ishkur: SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.

What do you mean "acquired"? Life has always been able to replicate. If it didn't, it wouldn't be life. In fact, one of the very definitions of life is the ability to replicate. So you can't divorce the two and say one existed without the other (for very long). Life is replication, and replication is life.

Secondly, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two entirely separate things. The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency over time. That's all it does. It does not specify why this mechanism is there, is just explains how it works...

Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.  Therefore, evolution cannot explain all of the complexities of life.


No.  Evolution begins with the ability to replicate.  A simple amino acid sequence or mRNA sequence can have the ability to self replicate and more importantly allow for variation to be introduced.  This is all evolution requires.

And your story about abiogenesis -- "the arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years" -- is very interesting.  Doesn't an "arduous, painstaking process" imply forethought and deliberation in working toward a goal, as if it were the work of an intelligent agent?

Crystal growth is an arduous painstaking process that takes millions of years at least.  You're not suggesting that crystals form only by God's the intelligent designer's whim.

Incidentally, your falsification of ID listed above was no such thing.  It was a test of the theory of evolution, not a test of intelligent design.  In fact, even if we fulfilled the terms of your test it would not falsify ID because one could simply claim the designer set things up so that they would unfold that way or intervened in an undetectable way to cause life to unfold as it has.

In order for something to be falsifiable it has to satisfy the following form: If I do x, the theory says y should happen.  If y does not happen then the theory is falsified.  What "x" could you perform that would result in the designer doing "y" such that the absence of "y" would mean that a designer does not exist?
 
2013-05-05 11:14:00 PM  

Stile4aly: SkinnyHead: Ishkur: SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.

What do you mean "acquired"? Life has always been able to replicate. If it didn't, it wouldn't be life. In fact, one of the very definitions of life is the ability to replicate. So you can't divorce the two and say one existed without the other (for very long). Life is replication, and replication is life.

Secondly, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two entirely separate things. The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency over time. That's all it does. It does not specify why this mechanism is there, is just explains how it works...

Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.  Therefore, evolution cannot explain all of the complexities of life.

No.  Evolution begins with the ability to replicate.  A simple amino acid sequence or mRNA sequence can have the ability to self replicate and more importantly allow for variation to be introduced.  This is all evolution requires.

And your story about abiogenesis -- "the arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years" -- is very interesting.  Doesn't an "arduous, painstaking process" imply forethought and deliberation in working toward a goal, as if it were the work of an intelligent agent?

Crystal growth is an arduous painstaking process that takes millions of years at least.  You're not suggesting that crystals form only by God's the intelligent designer's whim.

Incidentally, your falsification of ID listed above was no such thing.  It was a test of the theory of evolution, not a test of intelligent design.  In fact, even if we fulfilled the terms of your test it would not falsify ID because one could simp ...


Plus, he still cannot tell us who designed the designer.
 
2013-05-05 11:21:50 PM  
Gosh, this really counters my firmly held belief that all southern educated people are fundie Christian, ignorant whackjobs.  I'll have to reconsider everything that I hold true.
 
2013-05-05 11:31:14 PM  
img58.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-05 11:33:29 PM  

PsiChick: What's the difference between a science fair and an individual experiment? That's the difference between what you're talking about and what Randi's doing. Not to mention the huge amount of fame he generates for the experiment continuing, the way he would be treated by skeptics if he was 'tricked by psychics', etc...


What exactly is Randi doing that you find so objectionable? I thought he was merely asking people to demonstrate psychic abilities under controlled conditions. Is there something I missed or what?

PsiChick: So you're arguing that, because we see a physical change in the brain when these experiences appear..we're putting too much faith in the scanning equipment because it only shows us which areas of the brain are lighting up, and not specific responses?

Riiight.

/That's  still a physical reaction, genius--psychics are  still experiencing physical stimuli that do not fall under the psychological definition of insanity.


You somehow managed to get the point while completely missing the point. The question to ask is: "Why do those areas appear to be more active than a baseline condition in those individuals during the experiment?"

Is it because they are indeed experiencing messages from beyond the grave?
Is it because they need to be in a self-induced trance-like state to perpetuate their brand of fraud?
Is it just what normally happens in the brain when someone pretends to be talking to a ghost?
Is it just what normally happens in the brain when someone pretends to be talking to anyone who isn't present?
What do the particular brain regions that appear to be active actually do?
Was the study conducted to professional standards with respect to methodology and data analysis?
Activation in fMRI studies is inherently comparative - what baseline task was used, and is that the best baseline task to use?

It's actually quite easy to get activation in brain regions in fMRI studies - simply seeing an area 'light up' tells us nothing without additional information.

For example, even if you accept paranormal phenomena, I sincerely doubt you would accept that a dead (and frozen) salmon is sensitive to human emotion. Or would you:?  http://boingboing.net/2012/10/02/what-a-dead-fish-can-teach-you.html

/I hope not...
 
2013-05-05 11:39:12 PM  

Apos: Bobby Jindal weeps for.....Bobby Jindal.


I hope Jindal drowns in a pool of tears and fire ants, covered in the blood of the poor, ill, unlucky non-millionaires.
In his imbecilic little skull, there are no poor or sick.
I hope he loses all his wealth and power one day, gets anal cancer, and has the good fortune to wind up in the NON-charity hospitals here.

FARK GOVERNOR JINDAL.
 
2013-05-05 11:40:12 PM  

TheDarkSaintOfGin: ox45tallboy: jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.

FYI, the parents weren't happy about it, and the father stated the child would not be attending the school the following year.

Link

Thank you for that.  I was hoping it was faked.  I have now lost all hope.

/last shred of faith in humanity=gone


Don't be down y'all.  The kid's parents were pissed and took the kid out of the school, so that's good. :)
 
2013-05-05 11:44:05 PM  

rosebud_the_sled: Gosh, this really counters my firmly held belief that all southern educated people are fundie Christian, ignorant whackjobs.  I'll have to reconsider everything that I hold true.


Hey, I'm from the south and out of those, I'm only a wackjob.

Beating the curve, baby!
 
2013-05-05 11:46:33 PM  

HighZoolander: PsiChick: What's the difference between a science fair and an individual experiment? That's the difference between what you're talking about and what Randi's doing. Not to mention the huge amount of fame he generates for the experiment continuing, the way he would be treated by skeptics if he was 'tricked by psychics', etc...

What exactly is Randi doing that you find so objectionable? I thought he was merely asking people to demonstrate psychic abilities under controlled conditions. Is there something I missed or what?

PsiChick: So you're arguing that, because we see a physical change in the brain when these experiences appear..we're putting too much faith in the scanning equipment because it only shows us which areas of the brain are lighting up, and not specific responses?

Riiight.

/That's  still a physical reaction, genius--psychics are  still experiencing physical stimuli that do not fall under the psychological definition of insanity.

You somehow managed to get the point while completely missing the point. The question to ask is: "Why do those areas appear to be more active than a baseline condition in those individuals during the experiment?"

Is it because they are indeed experiencing messages from beyond the grave?
Is it because they need to be in a self-induced trance-like state to perpetuate their brand of fraud?
Is it just what normally happens in the brain when someone pretends to be talking to a ghost?
Is it just what normally happens in the brain when someone pretends to be talking to anyone who isn't present?
What do the particular brain regions that appear to be active actually do?
Was the study conducted to professional standards with respect to methodology and data analysis?
Activation in fMRI studies is inherently comparative - what baseline task was used, and is that the best baseline task to use?

It's actually quite easy to get activation in brain regions in fMRI studies - simply seeing an area 'light up' tells us nothing without additiona ...


A) I have two problems with Randi. First, he's incredibly biased. He's got a million dollars of his own money and his entire reputation riding on the outcome of the experiment he's running. Second, a lot of psychics have actually tried to complete the challenge, and he basically screwed them over, not to mention changed the rules on a whim.

B) 'We don't know how this works' != 'it's not happening'.  Something is happening. You are trying to argue we don't know what. Yes. We don't. We  will someday, but 'I don't know' does not equal 'it's not happening'. And if you're questioning their methodology and\or ability to run a study...go look it up, these aren't state secrets or anything.
 
2013-05-05 11:56:46 PM  

BSABSVR: jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.

Actually, IIRC the father of the child is the one who made the test public because he was shocked that his top notch private school was so terrible regarding science.  I believe the family is pulling the child from the school next year.


The fark? That's a legit picture? All this while I've been thinking it was a joke.
 
2013-05-06 12:07:55 AM  

Ishkur: He asks the question because he thinks there is no scientific answer


Or, alternately, is playing devil's advocate, allowing others to practice answering challenges intelligently duplicitous.
www.swanwickcentre.ca
 
2013-05-06 12:09:16 AM  

Biological Ali: The fark? That's a legit picture? All this while I've been thinking it was a joke.


Recheck Snopes.
 
2013-05-06 12:12:49 AM  

abb3w: Or, alternately, is playing devil's advocate, allowing others to practice answering challenges intelligently duplicitous.


And it's a good thing we've had these debates several times before on Fark, otherwise I might have had to spend some actual precious time writing out responses rather than just copy-pasting.

/ ; )
 
2013-05-06 12:20:18 AM  

PsiChick: A) I have two problems with Randi. First, he's incredibly biased. He's got a million dollars of his own money and his entire reputation riding on the outcome of the experiment he's running. Second, a lot of psychics have actually tried to complete the challenge, and he basically screwed them over, not to mention changed the rules on a whim.

B) 'We don't know how this works' != 'it's not happening'.   Something is happening. You are trying to argue we don't know what. Yes. We don't. We   will someday, but 'I don't know' does not equal 'it's not happening'. And if you're questioning their methodology and\or ability to run a study...go look it up, these aren't state secrets or anything.



About Randi, I don't know the specifics about what you're referring to, but I would happily challenge anyone to demonstrate psychic abilities under controlled conditions for no prize money, if that helps.

And you're still missing the point about the MRI work. We do know how MRI works, in very great, exacting detail (we know a lot about the brain too, but not that much yet). A false positive would mean exactly that it's not happening. And if you want me to look up their methods... well, you said that 'We know what parts of the brain light up during the experiences of mediums'

The list of those regions, just from the article you linked to: "Intriguingly, experienced psychographers showed lower levels of activity in the brain's frontal lobe regions of the left anterior cingulate and right precentral gyrus during psychography. These areas are linked with reasoning, planning, generating language, movement and problem solving, perhaps reflecting an absence of focus, self-awareness and consciousness during psychography. These psychographers also experienced less activity in the left hippocampus, which is linked with emotion, and the right superior temporal gyrus, which is linked with hearing. "

Gee, what a clear result. (the article writer also gets a lot wrong. The hippocampus does an awful lot of things, and is much more strongly tied to memory than emotion per se. The right superior temporal gyrus is a big area, only part of which is linked with hearing. And wow, look how many broad, vague things the frontal lobe regions are associated with - that really narrows down what the brains of the mediums are doing less of... or the same of but more efficiently... or more of but even more efficiently...)

If you want to cite that study as proof of anything, wouldn't you want to be *sure* that the people who did the work are competent at the method? I know I would.

But, I'll grant for the sake of argument and laziness that they were, and that the results are accurate (i.e., the brain regions identified by the authors are statistically reliable in response to the difference between when the mediums were doing their thing and when they weren't).

So what exactly are the 'experiences of mediums' that you think this study demonstrates the existence of? If it's just mumble mumble *must be something* mumble mumble, then so farking what? What an amazing new bit of knowledge to bequeath to the world! (and if the methods are poor, and this falls into dead fish territory, then wowsers! good jorb).

And, to be charitable, if it's just an internal state the mediums are capable of putting themselves into, then... ok.... let's have people think about their experiences at summer camp vs not. Wow - more brain regions show differences! This must also be an important result! Alert the Nobel committee!

If it's a response to an external stimulus - that is, the mediums are actually communicating with spirits - are you suggesting then that this study is evidence *for* the existence of said spirits? Because then the study would undergo a world a scrutiny, and I seriously doubt it would pass muster.
 
2013-05-06 12:32:32 AM  

HighZoolander: PsiChick:

So what exactly are the 'experiences of mediums' that you think this study demonstrates the existence of? If it's just mumble mumble *must be something* mumble mumble, then so farking what? What an amazing new bit of knowledge to bequeath to the world!  ...

Um...that's the point, genius. It's not 'oh my god, the laws of physics no longer exist!', it's 'wait a minute, these folks are actually experiencing something'. That  is big. It indicates the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did. Now,  what it's doing,  how it's doing it, no, we don't know that. We won't for a while, because we have a really low understanding of neurology. But yes, the point of this really is something that simple. A lot of science is.
 
2013-05-06 12:33:45 AM  

PsiChick: So we can safely say that the  physical side of it, well, you have to be a farking idiot to ignore that something's happening.


Just to sum up, you said what I quoted above, I'm saying not necessarily:

A. It could be a false positive/methodological failure (i.e., it's not happening/not real)
B. that 'something' could be no more important than thinking about summer camp re what the brain differences actually reflect (i.e., it can be safely ignored, even by a smart person)
 
2013-05-06 12:35:25 AM  
Yet again my country finds a way to bring me shame.

/is ashamed
 
2013-05-06 12:39:03 AM  

HighZoolander: PsiChick: So we can safely say that the  physical side of it, well, you have to be a farking idiot to ignore that something's happening.

Just to sum up, you said what I quoted above, I'm saying not necessarily:

A. It could be a false positive/methodological failure (i.e., it's not happening/not real)
B. that 'something' could be no more important than thinking about summer camp re what the brain differences actually reflect (i.e., it can be safely ignored, even by a smart person)


...No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those. And that  because it's not either of those (and if you want to prove it's either of those, go look at the methodology and prove it there), that represents,  along with the other evidence, indication that having at least some psychic talents are based in  physical, possibly  neurological, processes.

That's huge. It tells us where to start looking, what to start looking for. It's also totally ignored, because 'psychics aren't real'. When they finally figure this stuff out, the headline will read 'Psychics finally disproven!' as they go on to explain in detail exactly what they've been doing. Look at the University of Granada and College London articles. They did exactly that.
 
2013-05-06 12:41:48 AM  

PsiChick: No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those


How do you prove that it is not either a false positive or evidence that the subject was not just reacting to other stimulus?
 
2013-05-06 12:45:48 AM  

PsiChick: HighZoolander: PsiChick: So what exactly are the 'experiences of mediums' that you think this study demonstrates the existence of? If it's just mumble mumble *must be something* mumble mumble, then so farking what? What an amazing new bit of knowledge to bequeath to the world!  ...

Um...that's the point, genius. It's not 'oh my god, the laws of physics no longer exist!', it's 'wait a minute, these folks are actually experiencing something'. That  is big. It indicates the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did. Now,  what it's doing,  how it's doing it, no, we don't know that. We won't for a while, because we have a really low understanding of neurology. But yes, the point of this really is something that simple. A lot of science is.


No shiat! They're conscious, of course they're experiencing something! How much of a farking idiot do you have to be to assume that that is the biggest discovery since fire? I could think about my toenail and I can guarantee you that I could see brain differences in MRI vs. me thinking about someone else's toenail. Do you think that is BIG? Do you think it indicates that the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did? (assume that the experimenters asked me to think about toenails, not that I just did it and surprised them with it afterwards, because really, maybe nobody ever normally would think about toenails like that, but that's not important right now).


/you may be underestimating neuroscience
//that's twice now you've called me a genius - I wouldn't say that that's what it takes to poke holes in your arguments, but if that's what gets you through the day, I'm not going to argue the point.
 
2013-05-06 12:46:52 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those

How do you prove that it is not either a false positive or evidence that the subject was not just reacting to other stimulus?


...Because, in academic or scientific circles, you  check your data before you release it?

/Is...this really a surprise to people?
//Like, this is part of the whole 'college-educated' thing. Even English majors are supposed to check their sources...
 
2013-05-06 12:47:36 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.

Uh, it's actually explained by evolution in this very thread.


Tell me, Cameron, did you assess those explanations with critical thinking skills and logical analysis, or did you just accept them at face value?
 
2013-05-06 12:47:39 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those

How do you prove that it is not either a false positive or evidence that the subject was not just reacting to other stimulus?


exactly
 
2013-05-06 12:48:40 AM  

abb3w: Biological Ali: The fark? That's a legit picture? All this while I've been thinking it was a joke.

Recheck Snopes.


That's genuinely depressing. Wish I could go back to thinking it was made up, to be honest.
 
2013-05-06 12:48:53 AM  

PsiChick: .Because, in academic or scientific circles, you  check your data before you release it?


How does one check their data based on an MRI? An MRI doesn't show exactly what the subject was thinking or experiencing, just what area of the brain is active.
 
2013-05-06 12:49:01 AM  
Wow, things are getting kind of heated in here! My fellow Farkers, let's take advantage of the wonderful opportunity in this thread to laugh at fundies and post pictures of Christine O'Donnell.
i1243.photobucket.com

Here's an unintentional avant-garde interpretation of Go Tell It on the Mountain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg7uGL6Ku20
 
2013-05-06 12:49:08 AM  

PsiChick: cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those

How do you prove that it is not either a false positive or evidence that the subject was not just reacting to other stimulus?

...Because, in academic or scientific circles, you  check your data before you release it?

/Is...this really a surprise to people?
//Like, this is part of the whole 'college-educated' thing. Even English majors are supposed to check their sources...


Did you actually read that link about the dead fish?  A lot of published results are carp.. uh.. crap.
 
2013-05-06 12:51:01 AM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.

Uh, it's actually explained by evolution in this very thread.

Tell me, Cameron, did you assess those explanations with critical thinking skills and logical analysis, or did you just accept them at face value?


I assessed those explanations based on scientific data and tested hypotheses. None of which are present in "Intelligent design" and therefore it should not be introduced into a scientific classroom. You have not once proven that "intelligent design" has any reason for being in a scientific classroom and yet you continue to defend its use under this law as "logical."

Something tells me that science and logic aren't your strong suit.
 
2013-05-06 01:01:11 AM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution

Yes, it can be explained by evolution, because the ability to replicate is in genetic code.

It is?  How did it get there?


Magic.

There, happy?
 
2013-05-06 01:06:28 AM  

HighZoolander: PsiChick: HighZoolander: PsiChick: So what exactly are the 'experiences of mediums' that you think this study demonstrates the existence of? If it's just mumble mumble *must be something* mumble mumble, then so farking what? What an amazing new bit of knowledge to bequeath to the world!  ...

Um...that's the point, genius. It's not 'oh my god, the laws of physics no longer exist!', it's 'wait a minute, these folks are actually experiencing something'. That  is big. It indicates the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did. Now,  what it's doing,  how it's doing it, no, we don't know that. We won't for a while, because we have a really low understanding of neurology. But yes, the point of this really is something that simple. A lot of science is.

No shiat! They're conscious, of course they're experiencing something! How much of a farking idiot do you have to be to assume that that is the biggest discovery since fire? I could think about my toenail and I can guarantee you that I could see brain differences in MRI vs. me thinking about someone else's toenail. Do you think that is BIG? Do you think it indicates that the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did? (assume that the experimenters asked me to think about toenails, not that I just did it and surprised them with it afterwards, because really, maybe nobody ever normally would think about toenails like that, but that's not important right now).


/you may be underestimating neuroscience
//that's twice now you've called me a genius - I wouldn't say that that's what it takes to poke holes in your arguments, but if that's what gets you through the day, I'm not going to argue the point.


Again: If you think they got a false positive,  go read the damn study. Don't sit here arguing with me because you might have a feeling in your gut that maybe it's not true. The first step to scientific literacy is literacy.

HighZoolander: PsiChick: cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those

How do you prove that it is not either a false positive or evidence that the subject was not just reacting to other stimulus?

...Because, in academic or scientific circles, you  check your data before you release it?

/Is...this really a surprise to people?
//Like, this is part of the whole 'college-educated' thing. Even English majors are supposed to check their sources...

Did you actually read that link about the dead fish?  A lot of published results are carp.. uh.. crap.


Yes, I did. It's interesting, but wouldn't you agree it indicates that, well, the brain tissue responds to stimuli after death? Which isn't that surprising, since tissue is tissue. Frogs twitch when you send electricity through them, too.

cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: .Because, in academic or scientific circles, you  check your data before you release it?

How does one check their data based on an MRI? An MRI doesn't show exactly what the subject was thinking or experiencing, just what area of the brain is active.


Check against baseline and against the same subject (or different subjects if you have enough grant money) thinking of a memory, of a made-up image, or something random.

It's not a hard test to design, which is why it's easy to tell that Randi's full of shiat--if you want to show something physical is happening in the brains of mediums, have them imagine an image, have them imagine something random, basically put them through their paces, then have them do the medium thing under an MRI. If the result matches a prior scan, it's a false positive. If it doesn't, you've got your proof.
 
2013-05-06 01:10:35 AM  

PsiChick: Check against baseline and against the same subject (or different subjects if you have enough grant money) thinking of a memory, of a made-up image, or something random.


Okay and how do you test that baseline?
 
2013-05-06 01:13:18 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.

Uh, it's actually explained by evolution in this very thread.

Tell me, Cameron, did you assess those explanations with critical thinking skills and logical analysis, or did you just accept them at face value?

I assessed those explanations based on scientific data and tested hypotheses. None of which are present in "Intelligent design" and therefore it should not be introduced into a scientific classroom. You have not once proven that "intelligent design" has any reason for being in a scientific classroom and yet you continue to defend its use under this law as "logical."

Something tells me that science and logic aren't your strong suit.


No, I don't think you did.  Evolution cannot take place unless there is an ability to replicate in the first place.  So if someone told you otherwise in this thread, you were misled.  A Louisiana science education that teaches critical thinking skills and logical analysis would have helped you see that.
 
2013-05-06 01:15:47 AM  

SkinnyHead: critical thinking skills and logical analysis


Do you even know what that means?
 
2013-05-06 01:17:09 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: Check against baseline and against the same subject (or different subjects if you have enough grant money) thinking of a memory, of a made-up image, or something random.

Okay and how do you test that baseline?


I don't know how you get a baseline on an MRI. I'm not a neurologist. Presumably, however, they do actually know what a baseline (brain that isn't thinking of anything in particular) looks like.

/Sorry, but at some point I actually do not know the science. How to work an MRI is not my major.
 
2013-05-06 01:19:00 AM  

SkinnyHead: Evolution cannot take place unless there is an ability to replicate in the first place.


Yes, and I explained to you how that replication happens and why.

What part of it didn't you understand?
 
2013-05-06 01:21:06 AM  
So, I'm just curious. After seven pages of getting people to respond to him, how many times has SkinnyHead came?
 
2013-05-06 01:27:52 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: So Guillory says it's ok to teach Islam in schools as science?


Historically speaking, great strides in science and medicine were accomplished during the "Golden Age" of Islam. Islam is not anti-science.
 
2013-05-06 01:29:54 AM  

PsiChick: cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: Check against baseline and against the same subject (or different subjects if you have enough grant money) thinking of a memory, of a made-up image, or something random.

Okay and how do you test that baseline?

I don't know how you get a baseline on an MRI. I'm not a neurologist. Presumably, however, they do actually know what a baseline (brain that isn't thinking of anything in particular) looks like.

/Sorry, but at some point I actually do not know the science. How to work an MRI is not my major.


A brain that isn't thinking of anything would be dead.

I see what you think you are trying to prove, but you are wrong. Or rather, we don't have the technology yet to tell what exactly someone is thinking ABOUT. We know that areas that are active when a person is remembering something are different than when they are experiencing something; but there is a lot of crossover, and a memory can trigger an experience and vice versa.

Also, just because someone is experiencing something doesn't mean they are experiencing something from beyond the grave. Your example of the frog muscle twitch is wrong also, because that is a muscular response triggered by the muscle reacting to the electrical impulse--there are no muscles I know of in the brain, and electrical impulses to the brain, while they do some interesting things, don't cause it to twitch. It can, however, cause someone to experience the sensation of being watched, or that someone is in the room with them...sensations remarkably similar to that of ghosts or aliens. The similarity of some mediums' experiences to temporal lobe epilepsy has been researched and documented pretty extensively.

MRIs are not the thing to do this with anyway. It's PET scans that show areas of the brain that are active. MRIs don't do it, and if they're using them for this research, they're not using the best techniques.
 
2013-05-06 01:31:35 AM  
Meanwhile, in the Geek tab: a Fifth force has been discovered.

Meet the new gaps.
 
2013-05-06 01:36:15 AM  

Fark You I'm Drunk: So, I'm just curious. After seven pages of getting people to respond to him, how many times has SkinnyHead came?


That's an image I didn't need, thanks. And not right before bed.
 
2013-05-06 01:39:08 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Also, just because someone is experiencing something doesn't mean they are experiencing something from beyond the grave


This...is sort of my point. I'm not sure it even  is something beyond the grave. It's just  something, and this is a start on where to find them. And yes, it's probably similar to temporal lobe epilepsy.  That's probably what it's going to look like. And that's okay. Most psychics would be pissed off about that, because psychics have their own subculture that's highly spiritual (which could have been avoided, so I really have no sympathy for researchers who deal with that; research is incredibly buyer-beware for psychics, and at some point you make your own bed), but that's probably how it'll turn out. That doesn't make it less 'real'. It makes it  entirely real.

I don't know enough about PET v. MRI to comment about that, but I'll take your word for it.
 
2013-05-06 01:46:06 AM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.

Uh, it's actually explained by evolution in this very thread.

Tell me, Cameron, did you assess those explanations with critical thinking skills and logical analysis, or did you just accept them at face value?

I assessed those explanations based on scientific data and tested hypotheses. None of which are present in "Intelligent design" and therefore it should not be introduced into a scientific classroom. You have not once proven that "intelligent design" has any reason for being in a scientific classroom and yet you continue to defend its use under this law as "logical."

Something tells me that science and logic aren't your strong suit.

No, I don't think you did.  Evolution cannot take place unless there is an ability to replicate in the first place.  So if someone told you otherwise in this thread, you were misled.  A Louisiana science education that teaches critical thinking skills and logical analysis would have helped you see that.


Yes it can and it has and we can prove that it happens, unlike you false claim of ID. If you would have any critical thinking skills, you would actually understand this concept.
 
2013-05-06 01:48:08 AM  

Ishkur: SkinnyHead: Evolution cannot take place unless there is an ability to replicate in the first place.

Yes, and I explained to you how that replication happens and why.

What part of it didn't you understand?


To be fair, it is all pretty complex. It is easier for him to just say that god did everything.
 
2013-05-06 01:52:45 AM  
wait a minute...witch doctor..this sounds familiar. think think think

aha

isleofran.com
 
2013-05-06 01:58:14 AM  
Come on, stop feeding the troll.

i1243.photobucket.comi1243.photobucket.comi1243.photobucket.com

Also, Senator Elbert Guillory (D-Opelousas) mentioned in TFA is a moran. His vouching for the credibility of a witch doctor to allow creationism to be taught in schools is ridiculous. The witch doctor as well as most people with mystical/magickal approaches to spirituality, most likely have a very different (and probably open-ended) view of cosmology than fundies or even followers of organized religions in general.
 
2013-05-06 02:16:36 AM  

PsiChick: Again: If you think they got a false positive,  go read the damn study. Don't sit here arguing with me because you might have a feeling in your gut that maybe it's not true. The first step to scientific literacy is literacy.


I've actually studied MRI extensively and published papers using it. What I'm trying to get across to you is that it is not as easy to draw conclusions about it as you seem to think.

PsiChick: Yes, I did. It's interesting, but wouldn't you agree it indicates that, well, the brain tissue responds to stimuli after death? Which isn't that surprising, since tissue is tissue. Frogs twitch when you send electricity through them, too.


I'm glad you read it, but no. This is not the correct conclusion to draw. You can also see areas of activation in MRI that appear outside of the heads of your test subjects. This is also simply noise. It means nothing. If you do 1000 scans, and look at the areas outside the head that appear active, they are not the same from scan to scan. Average the scans, and with enough scans those areas of activation will simply disappear. Adjust the significance threshold, and they will also disappear, even with a single scan.

PsiChick: I don't know how you get a baseline on an MRI. I'm not a neurologist. Presumably, however, they do actually know what a baseline (brain that isn't thinking of anything in particular) looks like.


There is not 'a baseline' for functional MRI. Any particular baseline that is chosen depends on the hypothesis being tested.

PsiChick: This...is sort of my point. I'm not sure it even  is something beyond the grave. It's just  something, and this is a start on where to find them. And yes, it's probably similar to temporal lobe epilepsy.  That's probably what it's going to look like. And that's okay. Most psychics would be pissed off about that, because psychics have their own subculture that's highly spiritual (which could have been avoided, so I really have no sympathy for researchers who deal with that; research is incredibly buyer-beware for psychics, and at some point you make your own bed), but that's probably how it'll turn out. That doesn't make it less 'real'. It makes it  entirely real.

I don't know enough about PET v. MRI to comment about that, but I'll take your word for it.


What evidence would you want to see to determine whether or not it's real? How would you test 'probably similar to temporal lobe epilepsy'?

What I'm trying to get you to see is that you should be rigorously trying to find out what's wrong with these studies (if nothing, then maybe there's something), not what's right with them. If you focus on how they could be right, then there's a much better chance that you're just fooling yourself.


Gyrfalcon: MRIs are not the thing to do this with anyway. It's PET scans that show areas of the brain that are active. MRIs don't do it, and if they're using them for this research, they're not using the best techniques.


just to clarify this - structural MRI does not show areas of the brain that are active, as you say. Functional MRI does show active brain areas, using blood flow as a proxy for neural activity (I can get more technically precise if you want). There are pros and cons of FMRI in comparison to PET. In my posts above I meant to be referring to FMRI, not structual MRI. I assume that that's what the authors did, which I don't take to be a problem necessarily.

It's partly about the rigorous methodology, and partly about drawing inferences from the results. It may be that the study authors are appropriately rigorous and cautious (I haven't read the study - I come to fark to argue, not to work), and it may be that the media coverage is overblowing it, and then PsiChick is maybe even stating things a bit more strongly.

I do have to say though, that I would not accept evidence for psychic phenomena unless it were done extremely rigorously by people with unimpeachable reputations. Call me biased, or call me Bayesian; at this point: tomato, tomahto.
 
2013-05-06 02:26:47 AM  

PsiChick: Erix: PsiChick: ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."

Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.

Would it be not science if I offered a reward for a fossil proving human and dinosaur coexistence?  As long as the methods are sound and the evidence is properly studied, the reward did nothing other than provide the motivation for people to supply testable samples.

Randi isn't exactly doing that, but the greater point is that by offering a reward he's drawing attention to the fact that no one has claimed it.  It's public outreach with tiny science filling.

The bold part is the really big point.

To start with (warning: Nerding ahead), 'psychic' is a cultural term. The experiences of, say, visions, are a human universal--the  an da shealladh of Scotland, the drawings of Australian aborigines, etc.--and that goes for quite a few other 'psychic' experiences. Now, those experiences  have been proven real. The University of College London and University of Granada both linked synthesia to reading ...


There was no "nerding" about the gibberish nonsense you just put forth. I like people like you though, because it makes it so easy to just categorize you as a nutter.
 
2013-05-06 03:35:45 AM  

PsiChick: Um...that's the point, genius. It's not 'oh my god, the laws of physics no longer exist!', it's 'wait a minute, these folks are actually experiencing something'. That  is big. It indicates the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did.


Every portion of the brain lights up under some stimulus, so what's weird about what the bit that lights up for mediums, exactly?  What does it correlate to that's unexpected?

By telling us that there are regions of the brain that light up when hanging out with a cold-reader, all you're telling us are that the cold reader is a thing, that exists, that the subjects can sense.

... holy shiat, you've proven that psychics aren't invisible.  WOAH MIND BLOWN.
 
2013-05-06 04:15:14 AM  

Walter Paisley: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That "Were you there?" response could also be used to counter just about everything that fundies claim to be true.


Where you there when they crucified our Lord?
 This might end badly for creationists...
 
2013-05-06 04:33:58 AM  
I came to the thread for religious derp, instead I got new age psychic derp.
 
2013-05-06 04:41:48 AM  
An example of Randi's totally "biased" million dollar challenge.

So biased in fact that the institute and the person making the claim negotiate the conditions of the test before hand and sign a contract stating that all parties agree to those terms.
 
2013-05-06 04:47:53 AM  

SkinnyHead: But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.


It's bollocks.
 
2013-05-06 04:54:45 AM  
Why are they trying to get legislators who are stupid enough to have passed this law in the first place to overturn it? Sounds like a waste of effort. Put together a case and have the law overturned in court. One step.
 
2013-05-06 05:27:11 AM  

SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.


Creationism = a pig
Creation Science = a pig in a tuxedo
Intelligent Design = a pig-shaped tuxedo, but no pig
Teach the Controversy = squirt BBQ sauce on the other guy's tuxedo
 
2013-05-06 05:45:50 AM  

Mikey1969: In 2008, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed the "Louisiana Science Education Act" into law. This Orwellian-named bit of legislation was an outrageous attempt to allow creationism to be taught in schools.

Oh FFS, LEARN what farking "Orwellian" means before slapping it on everything that is handy, you dipshiat. The name is not "Orwellian" at all. Something like the Thinking Alignment Act, now THAT would be "Orwellain".

God, journalism has turned to utter shiat. People don't even bother to use the right version of a word anymore. The bee removal story on the Main Page said that the bees were removed from the "eve" of the house. It used to be that you only saw this type of shiat on the message boards, the articles were still written by professionals. I'm not even sure journalism degrees exist anymore... I sure as Hell know that editors don't.


Disagree. 'Orwellian' is appropriate, here. The Ministry of Peace wages war. The Ministry of Truth spreads lies, and this "Science Education Act" indoctrinates religion.

'Orwellian' is correct. I'm sorry. I do not make the rules. You are simply going to have to deal with it.
 
2013-05-06 06:14:04 AM  

fusillade762: [img.photobucket.com image 512x384]

ARISE CHICKEN! So I can fark you some more.


you, sir, are a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day.
 
2013-05-06 07:07:54 AM  

RyogaM: oon, and these super-dinos were directing our evolution toward being the ultimate half-time snack, and, when humans contained exactly the right ratio of bones/fat/muscle, they would hoover us all up to their secret dino-base in the moon and eat us.


lol...
 
2013-05-06 08:22:49 AM  
And, as usual, skinnyhead wins the thread because people will not farking stop responding to his inane horseshiat.

You can't reason with a person whose sole purpose in arguing is to be unreasonable. All you can do is insure that he prevents any other intelligent or interesting discussion from happening.

Congratulations, most of the people in this thread have actually managed to be stupider than skinnyhead. Pat yourselves on the back.
 
2013-05-06 08:30:06 AM  

GilRuiz1: I'm surprised Slate admitted Sen. Guillory is a Democrat.


And he will be held up as an example of "Democrat" thought for decades hence by future Republicans who will conveniently forget the oceans of derp put forth by their side.
 
2013-05-06 08:36:27 AM  

Graffito: GilRuiz1: I'm surprised Slate admitted Sen. Guillory is a Democrat.

And he will be held up as an example of "Democrat" thought for decades hence by future Republicans who will conveniently forget the oceans of derp put forth by their side.


Gil's dumb ass actually agrees with Jindal, so I wouldn't bet that he would categorize it as derp.
 
2013-05-06 08:51:40 AM  
I make it a point not to argue with a creationist.  That just brings me down to their level.

/Echoing a point about a Roman master beating his slave.
 
2013-05-06 09:02:36 AM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Voodoo gets results


yeah, I do.
 
2013-05-06 09:39:23 AM  
Creation
In religion and philosophy stories of the supernatural creation of the Earththe biblical account of creationISM a suffix appended to many philosophical concepts
 
2013-05-06 09:44:56 AM  
After browsing this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the only Farkers dumber than Skinnyhead are the ones who keep responding to him.

/you can breath through your nose, guys
//not just your mouth
 
2013-05-06 10:09:54 AM  
Lousyiana: Broke and Stupid.

like the rest of the South


did i mention its also Republican territory.  like the rest of the south.
 
2013-05-06 11:05:39 AM  

TwoBeersOneCan: After browsing this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the only Farkers dumber than Skinnyhead are the ones who keep responding to him.

/you can breath through your nose, guys
//not just your mouth


So you've never kept sharp by sparring with a dummy?
 
2013-05-06 11:22:40 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: TwoBeersOneCan: After browsing this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the only Farkers dumber than Skinnyhead are the ones who keep responding to him.

/you can breath through your nose, guys
//not just your mouth

So you've never kept sharp by sparring with a dummy?


I think many responses are also for the benefit of lurkers that don't know much on the subject.
 
2013-05-06 11:33:35 AM  

Erix: cameroncrazy1984: TwoBeersOneCan: After browsing this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the only Farkers dumber than Skinnyhead are the ones who keep responding to him.

/you can breath through your nose, guys
//not just your mouth

So you've never kept sharp by sparring with a dummy?

I think many responses are also for the benefit of lurkers that don't know much on the subject.


Yes; once again I will point out  Ishkur's excellent summary of the beginning of life.
 
2013-05-06 11:55:59 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: TwoBeersOneCan: After browsing this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the only Farkers dumber than Skinnyhead are the ones who keep responding to him.

/you can breath through your nose, guys
//not just your mouth

So you've never kept sharp by sparring with a dummy?


To practice your debate skills, you have to debate with someone who actually knows how debate works.  He just makes shiat up as he goes along.  What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that you're practicing your sharpshooting by playing Call of Duty.
 
2013-05-06 12:21:58 PM  
Silly stupid creationists don't even know what Europe looks like.
 
2013-05-06 12:30:46 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: cameroncrazy1984: TwoBeersOneCan: After browsing this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the only Farkers dumber than Skinnyhead are the ones who keep responding to him.

/you can breath through your nose, guys
//not just your mouth

So you've never kept sharp by sparring with a dummy?

To practice your debate skills, you have to debate with someone who actually knows how debate works.  He just makes shiat up as he goes along.


And which camp do you think the majority of Young Earthers fall into?
 
2013-05-06 12:34:46 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: cameroncrazy1984: TwoBeersOneCan: After browsing this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the only Farkers dumber than Skinnyhead are the ones who keep responding to him.

/you can breath through your nose, guys
//not just your mouth

So you've never kept sharp by sparring with a dummy?

To practice your debate skills, you have to debate with someone who actually knows how debate works.  He just makes shiat up as he goes along.  What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that you're practicing your sharpshooting by playing Call of Duty.


It never hurts to be more capable of quickly and succinctly smashing down the bullshiat of the stupidly ignorant.  Many times there are people who aren't stupid but are ignorant around, and while you won't change a skinnyhead's mind, you may limit their influence.  With that said, I have skinnyhead on ignore because he is obnoxious, fwiw. I'd like to think he is just a persona, but I've met all too many people irl who are also make the same false arguments over and over.

"Obama said this in his book"
/snopes
'Nah, he actually said this'
"Oh, well that is referring to something else he said, not what I said he said, which I'm sure is in his book because my chain email said so"

These same people will then, never having found where in the book their supposed quote comes from, wait until they think people have forgotten how stupid they are and then repeat the lie later.  It's kind of disgusting to me that people can be so dishonest and stupid.
 
2013-05-06 12:43:05 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: To practice your debate skills, you have to debate with someone who actually knows how debate works.


Yes. And SkinnyHead actually knows how "debate" with cdesign proponentsists works.

TwoBeersOneCan: He just makes shiat up as he goes along.


Which is different from other cdesign proponentsists like Answers in Genesis or The Discovery Institute... how?
 
2013-05-06 12:44:37 PM  

Erix: TwoBeersOneCan: cameroncrazy1984: TwoBeersOneCan: After browsing this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the only Farkers dumber than Skinnyhead are the ones who keep responding to him.

/you can breath through your nose, guys
//not just your mouth

So you've never kept sharp by sparring with a dummy?

To practice your debate skills, you have to debate with someone who actually knows how debate works.  He just makes shiat up as he goes along.

And which camp do you think the majority of Young Earthers fall into?


Exactly.  Why would you practice debating someone who fundamentally is unable to debate with someone who is apparently unwilling or unable to debate?  Young Earthers can only be defeated by ignoring them, educating the people who aren't crazy (because a Young Earther won't allow themselves to be educated), then letting them be their little delusional minority, but instead, our society decides to amplify their voices with media attention, much as you guys amplify Skinnyhead's monumental stupidity.
 
2013-05-06 12:46:28 PM  

abb3w: TwoBeersOneCan: To practice your debate skills, you have to debate with someone who actually knows how debate works.

Yes. And SkinnyHead actually knows how "debate" with cdesign proponentsists works.

TwoBeersOneCan: He just makes shiat up as he goes along.

Which is different from other cdesign proponentsists like Answers in Genesis or The Discovery Institute... how?


Would you try to debate with AiG or the Discovery Institute?  It would be a much more productive use of your time to ignore them, then educate those who aren't lunatics.
 
2013-05-06 01:00:53 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: Would you try to debate with AiG or the Discovery Institute? It would be a much more productive use of your time to ignore them, then educate those who aren't lunatics.


However, the gesture of "debating" with such schmucks and pointing out the problems with their arguments is one possible means for educating those who aren't lunatics. Additionally, trying to find cracks in SkinnyHead's arguments that allow for presenting better information is useful as practice for such finding such cracks when talking to those only marginally less whacked out.

That's even without getting into complications regarding memetic innoculation and counter-innoculation.
 
2013-05-06 01:02:26 PM  

Candy Colored Clown: To start with (warning: Nerding ahead), 'psychic' is a cultural term. The experiences of, say, visions, are a human universal--the  an da shealladh of Scotland, the drawings of Australian aborigines, etc.--and that goes for quite a few other 'psychic' experiences. Now, those experiences  have been proven real. The University of College London and University of Granada both linked synthesia to reading ...

There was no "nerding" about the gibberish nonsense you just put forth. I like people like you though, because it makes it so easy to just categorize you as a nutter.


Yeah, forgot to delete that--I was going to go on and explain how the term 'psychic' itself is a purely cultural term that does not refer to the physical abilities but rather to the subculture formed by people with those abilities, but then I realized I could make my point without anthro-nerding.

And you really should read one or two of my links before calling me a nutter.

Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: Um...that's the point, genius. It's not 'oh my god, the laws of physics no longer exist!', it's 'wait a minute, these folks are actually experiencing something'. That  is big. It indicates the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did.

Every portion of the brain lights up under some stimulus, so what's weird about what the bit that lights up for mediums, exactly?  What does it correlate to that's unexpected?

By telling us that there are regions of the brain that light up when hanging out with a cold-reader, all you're telling us are that the cold reader is a thing, that exists, that the subjects can sense.

... holy shiat, you've proven that psychics aren't invisible.  WOAH MIND BLOWN.


The article I linked to answers that exact question. Funny, it's almost like you didn't read the thing.
 
2013-05-06 01:33:57 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: After browsing this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the only Farkers dumber than Skinnyhead are the ones who keep responding to him.


Not me.

I earned a TotalFark subscription for my efforts. So I'm getting something out of it.

I don't care how stupid and futile it is -- educating people and fighting ignorance may very well be one of the most noble activities that one can engage in.

/I also chased away Bevets
//believe me, this works. You just gotta be patient, persistent, and shoot down their stupid questions at every turn
 
2013-05-06 02:07:54 PM  

Ishkur: //believe me, this works. You just gotta be patient, persistent, and shoot down their stupid questions at every turn


Don't forget polite. More than a few folk have gotten permabans for rudeness.

PsiChick: The article I linked to answers that exact question.


Er, which one? You gave at least five links.
 
2013-05-06 02:20:16 PM  

abb3w: Ishkur: //believe me, this works. You just gotta be patient, persistent, and shoot down their stupid questions at every turn

Don't forget polite. More than a few folk have gotten permabans for rudeness.

PsiChick: The article I linked to answers that exact question.

Er, which one? You gave at least five links.


You referenced the MRI article. There's only one article I marked 'and we know what part of a medium's brain lights up when they're doing their thing' (or something along those lines). That's the MRI article.

Ishkur: /I also chased away Bevets


Dude, really? We need to give this guy\girl a medal, Fark, stat!
 
2013-05-06 02:46:22 PM  

PsiChick: You referenced the MRI article.


Er, no. That was Jim_Callahan; but thanks.

The underlying technical journal piece for that science news piece looks to be (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049360); however, I'm not seeing in either technical nor the science news pieces the answer to what's weird about what the bit that lights up for mediums. Are you referring to the differential level of activation between experienced and inexperienced psychographers? Or the relative increase in writing complexity produced?
 
2013-05-06 02:58:42 PM  

abb3w: PsiChick: You referenced the MRI article.

Er, no. That was Jim_Callahan; but thanks.

The underlying technical journal piece for that science news piece looks to be (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049360); however, I'm not seeing in either technical nor the science news pieces the answer to what's weird about what the bit that lights up for mediums. Are you referring to the differential level of activation between experienced and inexperienced psychographers? Or the relative increase in writing complexity produced?


Both, actually.
 
2013-05-06 03:27:31 PM  

abb3w: PsiChick: You referenced the MRI article.

Er, no. That was Jim_Callahan; but thanks.

The underlying technical journal piece for that science news piece looks to be (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049360); however, I'm not seeing in either technical nor the science news pieces the answer to what's weird about what the bit that lights up for mediums. Are you referring to the differential level of activation between experienced and inexperienced psychographers? Or the relative increase in writing complexity produced?


At least the authors are being appropriately cautious about their results and what they might mean. As the authors themselves point out, this was an exploratory study, and the statistics were not as rigorous as would normally be expected. The discussion raises a number of points, but (appropriately) does not appear to draw any solid conclusions.
 
2013-05-06 03:35:26 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.


I'm sure if I read further down in the thread I will see it at least once, but in any case I am compelled at this point to subjoin:

"Ting, tang, walla walla bing bang."
 
2013-05-06 03:53:59 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Silly stupid creationists don't even know what Europe looks like.


Creationists think Australia is located in central Europe.
 
2013-05-06 05:50:43 PM  

Ishkur: TwoBeersOneCan: After browsing this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the only Farkers dumber than Skinnyhead are the ones who keep responding to him.

Not me.

I earned a TotalFark subscription for my efforts. So I'm getting something out of it.

I don't care how stupid and futile it is -- educating people and fighting ignorance may very well be one of the most noble activities that one can engage in.

/I also chased away Bevets
//believe me, this works. You just gotta be patient, persistent, and shoot down their stupid questions at every turn



Please keep it up, you are one of my fark heroes.

You're like an Internet batman of information that stops thread muggings.
 
2013-05-06 05:52:04 PM  

Ishkur: //believe me, this works. You just gotta be patient, persistent, and shoot down their stupid questions at every turn


I'm only rude in Economics threads. Because Austrians piss me off far more than Creationists.
 
2013-05-06 05:52:50 PM  
err... that was meant to be a reply to abb3w, not myself.
 
2013-05-06 06:33:34 PM  

Ishkur: Ishkur: //believe me, this works. You just gotta be patient, persistent, and shoot down their stupid questions at every turn

I'm only rude in Economics threads. Because Austrians piss me off far more than Creationists.


And the Dutch...
 
2013-05-06 07:00:18 PM  
Wait...WHICH Doctor's half naked?

/pleasebeTenpleasebeTen
//Eleven would also be acceptable
///Nine's getting too old
////disappointed in you Farkers
 
2013-05-06 11:22:54 PM  

SkinnyHead: The law they are trying to repeal states that: "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

What's wrong with "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."  Would they prefer a law that prohibits students from using critical thinking skills and logic?


Basic science IS critical thinking.  Creationism is blind faith WITHOUT critical thinking.
 
2013-05-07 03:16:38 AM  

Ishkur: vygramul: Skinnyhead doesn't understand how you can falsify evolution because he is unimaginative.

Falsifying evolution is as hard as falsifying gravity because it's so farking obvious. He'd have to prove that every species in the world does not change or adapt to its environment. We've witnessed that happening! Hell, we've directed it with animal husbandry, evolving specific traits for our needs over thousands of years.

What did he think was going on when we did that?


Actually, evolution would have been very hard to defend today if we had not discovered genes and inheritance of genetic traits. This was one of the big predictions of evolution, that there would be some means by which parents could pass on their individual traits to their offspring; at Darwin's time nobody knew what this was. Darwin took a lot of heat for this; it was only with the discovery of genes and DNA that this prediction was verified. This is an example of a theory predicting something which has later been verified; since this has happened, the theory of evolution is on exceptionally stable ground.
 
Displayed 379 of 379 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report