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 85
    More: Stupid, Education Act, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Bobby Jindal  
•       •       •

8999 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-05 10:10:11 PM
9 votes:

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 08:06:20 PM
5 votes:
SkinnyHead:
i0.kym-cdn.com
/guys...
2013-05-05 04:42:34 PM
5 votes:
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 04:36:56 PM
5 votes:

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 05:02:53 PM
4 votes:

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 05:01:08 PM
4 votes:

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 04:45:25 PM
4 votes:

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


Southern backwardness knows no political party.
2013-05-05 04:15:12 PM
4 votes:
So Guillory says it's ok to teach Islam in schools as science?
2013-05-05 10:54:10 PM
3 votes:

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 07:58:14 PM
3 votes:

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 06:51:39 PM
3 votes:

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 06:41:29 PM
3 votes:

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 05:00:11 PM
3 votes:
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 04:54:39 PM
3 votes:

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 04:44:47 PM
3 votes:
Once more I'm grateful I live in Washington state, far, far away from these freaks.
2013-05-05 04:44:33 PM
3 votes:

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 04:44:14 PM
3 votes:

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 04:33:44 PM
3 votes:

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 04:20:44 PM
3 votes:

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 11:06:55 PM
2 votes:
Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.
2013-05-05 05:09:13 PM
2 votes:

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 05:08:44 PM
2 votes:

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 05:03:56 PM
2 votes:

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 04:51:38 PM
2 votes:

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


Why?
2013-05-05 04:43:14 PM
2 votes:
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 04:41:03 PM
2 votes:
freethoughtblogs.com
2013-05-05 04:24:06 PM
2 votes:

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 04:16:41 PM
2 votes:
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 04:10:33 PM
2 votes:
Sometimes I am ashamed of my country.
2013-05-05 04:03:14 PM
2 votes:
images4.wikia.nocookie.net

"My work is done, thanks to Da Jindal! MWAHAHAHAHA!"
2013-05-06 01:33:57 PM
1 votes:

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 12:43:05 PM
1 votes:

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 11:55:59 AM
1 votes:

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 10:09:54 AM
1 votes:
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 09:44:56 AM
1 votes:
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 05:45:50 AM
1 votes:

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 02:26:47 AM
1 votes:

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 12:20:18 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-05-05 11:33:29 PM
1 votes:

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 10:46:23 PM
1 votes:

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 10:37:30 PM
1 votes:

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 10:27:44 PM
1 votes:

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 10:15:25 PM
1 votes:
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 09:59:52 PM
1 votes:
Has....Has this somehow morphed into a Christine O'Donnell thread?


Awesome!


ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com
2013-05-05 09:56:42 PM
1 votes:

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 09:36:29 PM
1 votes:

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 09:33:58 PM
1 votes:
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 09:32:31 PM
1 votes:

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 09:17:25 PM
1 votes:

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 08:58:03 PM
1 votes:

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 08:57:22 PM
1 votes:

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 08:12:13 PM
1 votes:
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 08:01:36 PM
1 votes:

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 07:59:22 PM
1 votes:
Really? I'm first?

ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com
2013-05-05 07:54:48 PM
1 votes:

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 07:37:23 PM
1 votes:
...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 07:35:50 PM
1 votes:
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 07:30:51 PM
1 votes:

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 07:30:40 PM
1 votes:

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 07:27:25 PM
1 votes:

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 07:23:38 PM
1 votes:
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 07:15:55 PM
1 votes:

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 06:40:28 PM
1 votes:

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 06:27:46 PM
1 votes:

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 06:27:23 PM
1 votes:

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 05:57:31 PM
1 votes:

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 05:33:38 PM
1 votes:
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 05:23:27 PM
1 votes:

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 05:19:49 PM
1 votes:
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 05:19:03 PM
1 votes:
I don't think schools should be teaching cretinism.
2013-05-05 05:08:53 PM
1 votes:
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 05:08:47 PM
1 votes:
Well yeah but shiat.

Prayer is just hoping. Voodoo gets results.
2013-05-05 05:08:08 PM
1 votes:

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 05:05:51 PM
1 votes:
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 05:02:15 PM
1 votes:

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 05:01:17 PM
1 votes:

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 05:01:08 PM
1 votes:

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 05:00:37 PM
1 votes:

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 04:57:03 PM
1 votes:

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 04:56:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:40:04 PM
1 votes:
...after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had

[idontwanttoliveonthisplanet.jpg]
2013-05-05 04:27:21 PM
1 votes:

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


img707.imageshack.us
2013-05-05 04:21:50 PM
1 votes:
I was hoping for half-naked witches and the physician who treats them.
2013-05-05 04:04:56 PM
1 votes:
Is this a race to the bottom with Kansas?
2013-05-05 03:16:51 PM
1 votes:
Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.
 
Displayed 85 of 85 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report