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  
•       •       •

9000 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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).
 
Displayed 50 of 379 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report