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.

(Huffington Post)   Kentucky citizens call new school science curriculum "socialist" and "fascist", and there are about four things wrong with that sentence   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 361
    More: Dumbass, Next Generation Science Standards, Kentucky, teaching of evolution, Kentucky Board of Education, program note, compulsory education, elective, Gary Herbert  
•       •       •

11577 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jul 2013 at 11:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 12:38:43 PM

FloydA:
I actually posted several links in  this post, just upthread.  Would you please take a moment to review those and tell me why you don't find them convincing?

In addition, while you're at it, would you kindly review the image in this post and let me know which of the 14 points listed are mistaken or open to dispute?  Thank you.


He won't find them convincing simply because such things are never mentioned in the Revised Standard Version bible. He cannot refute any of those 14 points for the same reason. Guys like this will insist to the point of violence that Jesus was a blond haired, blue eyed, machine gun toting master capitalist who defeated communism with the help of Ronald Reagan, who was actually the Second Coming.
 
2013-07-31 12:59:42 PM

ciberido: Divinegrace: FlashHarry: "treats evolution as fact."

evolution IS a fact, you farking idiots. the theory is to HOW it happens, the prevailing thought being that it happens via natural selection.

There is a real a major difference between genetics (how one species mates with a member of its species to produce a new member of the SAME species) and Evolution (one species BECOMES another species...an ape BECOMES a man).


Evolution is indeed a theory with no 'facts', not even one 'fact', to back it up.  Never one has it been recorded were one species BECOMES another...not ever.

Oddly enough I had you farkied as "stupid" even before this thread began.  No idea why.


Lucky guess?  Or maybe, actually and consistently stupid.
 
2013-07-31 01:03:37 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Evolution vs creationsim is hilarious, because reality trolls both sides:

IF you believe in evolution, THEN you must accept that religious people are better adapted than atheists because they (a) stick together and (b) are willing to murder those who do not share their beliefs. This means in the long run they will overrun the atheists.

OTOH, IF you are religious, THEN you have to look at all the evil that religion has done in the world, and remember that to ignore history is willful ignorance (a sin) and good will eventually prevail, you have to accept that religions will one day be be overrun by the atheists.

OH DEAR!!

Actually, there is a simple route out of this contradiction, and when you figure it out, you understand how contemporary society *really* works.



A heck of a lot of basic misconceptions there. Off the top of my head:

-socially-derived traits such as religious belief do not necessarily reflect a genetic basis
-evolution doesn't work that way on groups- even multi-level selection theory requires reproductively quasi-isolated subgroups, which of course isn't the case with religious and non-religious people
-the traits you describe are not universal nor necessarily even common within those groups, notably "are willing to murder those who do not share their beliefs", or atheists as representing "good"
-"good will eventually prevail" is too simplistic of a mechanism for any prediction of future events, much less a way of judging relative fitness and which traits will become fixed over time.

One thing you did get right is that there is indeed a simple route out of this contradiction: what you have posed is only a 'contradiction' since it is contrived through misconceptions on your part. In addition, it does reveal something about how contemporary society works - scientific literacy is far lower than it should be, and ignorance does not preclude people from voicing their opinion.
 
2013-07-31 01:40:50 PM

anfrind: FloydA: Divinegrace: <stupidity deleted>

I actually posted several links in  this post, just upthread.  Would you please take a moment to review those and tell me why you don't find them convincing?

In addition, while you're at it, would you kindly review the image in  this postand let me know which of the 14 points listed are mistaken or open to dispute?  Thank you.

You'll never convince him.  According to Creationists like him, facts are what liberals and atheists use to deny the truth.


"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." -- Martin Luther
 
2013-07-31 02:04:26 PM
anfrind:

You'll never convince him.  According to Creationists like him, facts are what liberals and atheists use to deny the truth.

Deathfrogg:

He won't find them convincing simply because such things are never mentioned in the Revised Standard Version bible. He cannot refute any of those 14 points for the same reason.

From experience, I suspect you are correct.   I expect that he will read the posts, but he won't post again in this thread, and that he will post exactly the same assertions in the next thread, claiming that he has never seen the evidence I presented.  

I might be wrong about that; I kind of hope I am, but we'll see.
 
2013-07-31 02:07:05 PM
draypresct:
Thanks for this, by the way.

The ability to easily link to your old arguments instead of endlessly restating them is one of the advantages to arguing on the internet. I invite Divinegrace to take advantage of another advantage - the ability to quickly and easily check out someone else's references.

/Old enough to remember arguing this sort of thing back when "checking references" would have meant several hours of going back and forth between the card catalog and the stacks in the local library.


My pleasure.  I agree with you about the advantages of the internet (and also remember card catalogs all too well! :-)
 
2013-07-31 02:07:07 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: /So, absolutely not science.


I hope you realize I was being sarcastic.  It appears the Masters degree he claims to have obtained is available via computer correspondence.  It's also worth noting that he admits in his blog to falling in love with a girl who was underage, waiting years so they could marry, then ultimately divorcing and his ex-wife converting to Islam (through he doesn't capitalize "Islam" in his blog.)

America pays far too much attention to vocal idiots; the irony being that both of us are guilty in this example.
 
2013-07-31 02:17:08 PM

caddisfly: It appears the Masters degree he claims to have obtained is available via computer correspondence.  It's also worth noting that he admits in his blog to falling in love with a girl who was underage, waiting years so they could marry, then ultimately divorcing and his ex-wife converting to Islam (through he doesn't capitalize "Islam" in his blog.)


wait - are you talking about aslan?
 
2013-07-31 03:09:00 PM

hubiestubert: Nope, the folks whose states had originally formed the Union, they were out of touch, what with their kooky adherence to law, their schools that are older than the nation, and all that folderol.


Say 'hello' to the various reform, protestant, and such churches that separated from the Catholic Church due to the Catholics 'losing the point'.  It's a known sociological phenomenon.


serial_crusher: Problem with that chart is they included federal employees' salaries as expenses.


Also, in Alaska's specific case a lot of that spending is pure military due to it's strategic location(It's a great spot to fly planes to the whole Pacific Theater) and the low overall population reducing federal tax income.

Divinegrace: What is REALLY sad, is that people who 'claim' to be 'scientists' and have 'superior intelligence' don't know the difference between Genetics (a fact based science), and Evolution... (a theory that Darwin himself had serious doubts about due to, as he (Darwin) put it "unresolvable problems").


Sure, Darwin had problems with the theory that he couldn't resolve.  With the development of the field of genetics(heredity, dominant/recessive traits was still relatively new in Darwin's day), computer modeling, far more examples - present, past, higher(bacteria and such in the stratosphere), lower(extremophiles around deep water volcanic vents), etc...  We've solved basically every problem he had with evolution.

The thing to realize about evolution is that the level taught in public school only brushes the topic.  It's basically Darwin's level of understanding of the topic.  The specifics of evolution, the history of it, quickly becomes college level, even graduate - you need to specialize in it to start getting even half the cases.  Some of the weird stuff I've read about...  (While I have a degree, it's not in biology).  Same deal with teaching Newton model physics rather than Einstein or later - As long as you don't get too big(orbital mechanics) or small (molecular sizes), or too fast(c-fractional) it works.

Finally, I'll agree, teaching evolution as a 'fact' is a bit wrong, in the scientific realm it's still a theory, even if it's not a theory 'full of holes'.  Remember, gravity is still a theory.

Divinegrace: So you have seen an Ape give birth to a human. You have seen a fish give birth to a bird??? Please do share you lying sack of shiat. We get it, you don't know what Evolution is...you wrongfully think it is a FACT because frankly...it is just too complex for your mind to understand.


*sigh*  "Species" is an artificial construct of man imposed on nature to simplify our viewing of it.  Consider that specification started as based on taxonomy of various breeding populations - the more similar, the closer they were assumed to be.  When DNA was discovered and we started being able to compare it, the classification of what was an independent/related species shifted more towards DNA, but kind of like the demotion of Pluto, there's a HUGE bias against reclassing classical species.  For example, by some rules dogs and wolves shouldn't be considered separate species.  For that matter, Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears are considered separate, but we've found out relatively recently that they're capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.  Lions and Tigers can breed; female ligers are fertile, males aren't.  It's weird.  Then there's ring species (A can breed with B, which can breed with C, but C can't breed with A).

Anyways, when you really dig into it(and I'm just scratching the surface) biology is a very strange (and complicated) topic.  Ape give birth to a human?  We're still Apes!  Fish give birth to a Bird?  Birds are descendants from reptiles, specifically the dinosaurs.  Fish, well proto-fish ocean dwellers that eventually became reptiles are even further back.

One way to look at it would be computers - going from teletype devices to the building sized mainframes(dinosaurs) and supercomputers, to the eventual microcomputers(modern life), becoming our smart phones and tablets.  You have relatively long periods of refinement, but occasionally some major new 'trick' is found, and the change explodes through the populations.

I'm not entirely happy with my counters; not a professional at this by any means.  The critical point to my whole rant is that 'species' is an artificial line drawn in the sand, biology doesn't work that way.  Instead you get some fuzzy point where a species ends up in two population groups with different evolutionary pressures(Grizzlies to the south, Polars to the north), isolated from breeding with each other through some way, that starts diverging.  Eventually you get to the point where things have changed so that breeding with each other is selected against even if the populations eventually overlap again; whether this is by gene incompatibility, mate selection preferences, or changes in the equipment that makes breeding impractical.
 
2013-07-31 03:34:37 PM

Firethorn: Finally, I'll agree, teaching evolution as a 'fact' is a bit wrong, in the scientific realm it's still a theory, even if it's not a theory 'full of holes'.  Remember, gravity is still a theory.


Actually, evolution itself ("change in relative frequencies of variant alleles in a gene pool over the course of generations") is a "fact" as much as anything in science can ever be.  It has been observed.

The "theory" is that natural selection, mutation, recombination, migration, and drift are the primary causes of that fact.

(It can get confusing because both the observations we're trying to explain and the theory that we use to explain them are called "evolution.")
 
2013-07-31 04:24:47 PM

FloydA: Firethorn: Finally, I'll agree, teaching evolution as a 'fact' is a bit wrong, in the scientific realm it's still a theory, even if it's not a theory 'full of holes'.  Remember, gravity is still a theory.

Actually, evolution itself ("change in relative frequencies of variant alleles in a gene pool over the course of generations") is a "fact" as much as anything in science can ever be.  It has been observed.

The "theory" is that natural selection, mutation, recombination, migration, and drift are the primary causes of that fact.

(It can get confusing because both the observations we're trying to explain and the theory that we use to explain them are called "evolution.")


thanks. this was my point earlier. gravity, too, is a fact - the theory is what explains it.
 
Displayed 11 of 361 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report