Skip to content
 
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.

(Some Guy)   Why the theories of creationism and evolution can exist side by side   (belfasttelegraph.co.uk) divider line
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

3376 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 18 Jul 2009 at 2:44 AM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



301 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-07-17 10:25:38 PM  
Dumbass author claims to have read Dawkins et al. but criticizes him on a point already beaten into submission on numerous occasions. Evolution is NOT a game of random chance.
 
2009-07-17 10:30:52 PM  
They can exist side by side like powdered aluminum and powdered iron oxide can live side by side. Everything's fine until you add a flame.
 
2009-07-17 10:30:58 PM  
Zaphod B.: Evolution is NOT a game of random chance.

It isn't?
 
2009-07-17 10:32:42 PM  

Sgygus: Zaphod B.: Evolution is NOT a game of random chance.

It isn't?


Well, I suppose if you go down deep enough, to the mutations themselves. But all the actual evolving, natural selection, etc, is not random.
 
2009-07-17 10:35:01 PM  

Sgygus: Zaphod B.: Evolution is NOT a game of random chance.

It isn't?


No. The mutations themselves are stochastic, but the outcome of those mutations as they are expressed by the body are 'chosen' by who survives to breed, which is a decidedly non-random event.

If I've got a couple (random) mutations which in turn make it so I have thicker feathers than you, and it gets cold, you die, I don't. Nothing random about that at all.
 
2009-07-17 10:35:16 PM  
Creationists are idiots and it's sad that we're having this conversation in the 21st century.
 
2009-07-17 10:36:23 PM  
No YOU'RE a Towel: natural selection, etc, is not random.

Ok, I'll agree with you on a macro level. For most people, choosing a sexual partner is not random either.
 
2009-07-17 10:39:46 PM  

Sgygus: For most people, choosing a sexual partner is not random either.


I go with the first one that will tell me what the rag smells like.
 
2009-07-17 10:43:40 PM  
Everything comes from nothing be it from God or cosmic orgasm. Let's hoist a beer/communion wine together and move on.
 
2009-07-17 10:49:25 PM  

Sgygus: Zaphod B.: Evolution is NOT a game of random chance.

It isn't?


Once again, no it's not.
Please view and get it right next time.
 
2009-07-17 10:54:40 PM  
God is omnipotent, meaning God can do anything.

God could make both be true at the same time, and both sides can be right.

But they'd both rather yell and scream at each other.
 
2009-07-17 10:57:50 PM  

djkutch: Everything comes from nothing be it from God or cosmic orgasm. Let's hoist a beer/communion wine together and move on.


If only it were that pleasant. Unfortunately, creationism is the cornerstone for other judeo-christian ignorance than manifests itself, ultimately, as detriments to human progress, such as anti-science lobbying and hatred of homosexuals/other religions/anything more fun than the missionary position.
 
2009-07-17 11:02:41 PM  
All the sane people already realize this.
 
2009-07-17 11:04:07 PM  

SilentStrider: God is omnipotent, meaning God can do anything.

God could make both be true at the same time, and both sides can be right.

But they'd both rather yell and scream at each other.


God is also omniscient, meaning God knows everything as well. So how can God do anything (being omnipotent) that God doesn't already know about (being omniscient)?

/can't believe I'm being dragged into another evolution thread
 
2009-07-17 11:08:36 PM  
Zaphod B.: God is also omniscient, meaning God knows everything as well. So how can God do anything (being omnipotent) that God doesn't already know about (being omniscient)?

I'd need to smoke something before I could answer that question.
 
2009-07-17 11:15:14 PM  

Action Replay Nick: If only it were that pleasant. Unfortunately, creationism is the cornerstone for other judeo-christian ignorance than manifests itself, ultimately, as detriments to human progress, such as anti-science lobbying and hatred of homosexuals/other religions/anything more fun than the missionary position.


That has nothing to do with creation and everything to do with control.
 
2009-07-17 11:16:30 PM  

Action Replay Nick: djkutch: Everything comes from nothing be it from God or cosmic orgasm. Let's hoist a beer/communion wine together and move on.

If only it were that pleasant. Unfortunately, creationism is the cornerstone for other judeo-christian ignorance than manifests itself, ultimately, as detriments to human progress, such as anti-science lobbying and hatred of homosexuals/other religions/anything more fun than the missionary position.


Unknown_Poltroon: All the sane people already realize this.


Can I refill your beer, Unknown_Poltroon?

I hear what your saying, Nick. It's just not going to make any progress.
 
2009-07-17 11:23:50 PM  

Occam's Chainsaw: That has nothing to do with creation and everything to do with control.


Creationism itself has everything to do with control.
 
2009-07-17 11:27:57 PM  

Action Replay Nick: Creationism itself has everything to do with control.


Only in certain dogmas. A universe created by pure accident and completely disregarded by said creator is still an act of creation.
 
2009-07-17 11:39:15 PM  
credit to the comic Non Sequitur:

farm3.static.flickr.comView Full Size
 
2009-07-17 11:49:12 PM  
This guy has some good questions. I definitely don't know the answer to all of them. However, I do not think the proper response to having a lot of questions is to fill the gaps with whatever's handy. For example:

FTFA: How do outwardly identical, but reproductively-discrete species emerge alongside one another in the same ecological niche, as many kinds of fish have done?

There is an answer to this. It has to do with sympatric speciation. While my grasp on the subject isn't nearly as firm as I would like, an example relating to fish has to do with different light wavelengths penetrating to different depths. Some of the fish will be able to see better in one set of wavelengths than the other. What you get is positive disassortative mating, with the fish on top only mating with the fish on top and the fish below only mating with the fish below.

Again, my grasp on this isn't as great as I'd like. The point is that there are answers to be found.
 
2009-07-17 11:49:42 PM  

Occam's Chainsaw: Action Replay Nick: Creationism itself has everything to do with control.

Only in certain dogmas. A universe created by pure accident and completely disregarded by said creator is still an act of creation.


I'm talking about creationism. Modern, Christian creationism. Not 'creationism' in the zen hippy 'we all came from somewhere' sense.

Also, regarding the 'said creator' comment, nothing dictates that the universe needs to have been created. People who have a hard time grasping with the implications of something being infinite usually have a hard time realizing this.
 
2009-07-17 11:50:15 PM  

No YOU'RE a Towel: Sgygus: Zaphod B.: Evolution is NOT a game of random chance.

It isn't?

Well, I suppose if you go down deep enough, to the mutations themselves.



Even then, "random" only means "not preferentially occurring in ways that will be beneficial to the organism." Random, as far as selective advantage is concerned.

There are many non-random aspects to mutations as well.
 
2009-07-17 11:58:41 PM  

Action Replay Nick: I'm talking about creationism. Modern, Christian creationism. Not 'creationism' in the zen hippy 'we all came from somewhere' sense.


Fair enough. The Christians don't have a monopoly on creationism, though, and painting all creationist ideas as equal to Christian dogma is seriously reductionist.

Besides, which Christian creationist dogma are we discussing here? The-earth-was-created-on-a-day-in-October-6000-years-ago, dinosaur-fossils-are-a-test-of-faith creationism? 7-God-days-is-really-billions-of-years creationism? God-made-the-big-bang creationism?

Also, regarding the 'said creator' comment, nothing dictates that the universe needs to have been created. People who have a hard time grasping with the implications of something being infinite usually have a hard time realizing this.

Thermodynamics abhors infinity.
 
2009-07-18 12:01:34 AM  
I bought one of those old-style push lawnmowers. Worked great but there is on particular skinny weed that it can't mow down very well. I have to run over it 20 times to get it to cut. Over the last two years that particular weed has taken over the yard.

The reason is very clear. That weed has a better chance than the others to get tall enough, and survive long enough, to seed out.

It is totally obvious what has happened. Common sense.

That fact has not diminished my faith in God at all and there is no reason for it to.
 
2009-07-18 12:03:37 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: Thermodynamics abhors infinity.


Blasphemer.
 
2009-07-18 12:07:59 AM  
If 'they can exist side by side' you mean that you learn evolution and if you're a farking moron you ignore it for the whole 'God did everything' arguement, then yes, they can exist side by side.
 
2009-07-18 12:17:25 AM  

arkansas: The reason is very clear.


You intelligently designed a blade just sharp enough to cut the rest of the plants, but dull enough to knock that one over.
 
2009-07-18 1:11:42 AM  
Because insanity can't be cured?

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy."
-- H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)
 
2009-07-18 2:01:42 AM  
anything that posits the existence of a supernatural "creator" is, by definition, unscientific and, therefore, cannot "exist side by side" with a scientific theory such as evolution.
 
2009-07-18 2:24:24 AM  
I've composed a reply to the author. I would appreciate feedback. I tried to remain polite and respectful (it was not always easy). It's necessarily rather long.
_______________________________________
Mr. Myers;
Your article in the Belfast Telegraph (17 July 2009) inspired me to reply. I fear that you have, perhaps unwittingly, misconstrued or misunderstood modern evolutionary thought. I present your comments, with my replies interspersed, for your consideration.

You wrote:
"But is it more preposterous to believe that that piece of timber, and the willow tree from which it came, and the eye that beheld the wood, arrived in this world entirely by accident?
For in this, the 150th anniversary of the publication of 'The Origin of Species', that is what we've been endlessly told this year."


Natural selection is the precise opposite of "accident." It is the differential success at reproduction that occurs as the result of a good fit between an organism's anatomy (and behavior) and its environment.

It would indeed be absurd to believe that the tree, the person and the world were here in the form that they are completely as a result of accident or "random chance." However, this is not what Darwin or any modern evolutionary biologists claim.

I fear that you do your argument a disservice by misrepresenting evolution in this way.


You continue:
"Would a mathematician looking at the random ingredients of those ancient, poisonous seas be able to propose that, actuarially, enough molecular encounters would sooner or later result in the first spark of life (whatever that might be) leading to us, just four billion (or so) years later?"

Here, I fear that you are inadvertently employing the logical fallacy of "begging the question" by implicitly assuming that the existence of humans was an a priori "goal" towards which evolution was striving, rather than merely the fortuitous result of where it went.

When a stone rolls down a rough slope, there is a general rule that it will come to rest at the base of the slope. Gravity draws it downhill, creating a broad general pattern. But given the roughness of the slope, no mathematician could predict the precise path down the slope the stone will follow.
The path it actually takes is perfectly in accordance with the laws of physics, but nevertheless unpredictable in advance.
Once the stone is at rest, the path that it actually took can be explained, again in accordance with physics, but this can only be done post hoc. From the perspective of the rock, once it is at rest, the path it followed may appear to have been inevitable, since that is what actually happened. This appearance is illusory.
Given that we know of only one planet with life, we have a sample size of one. No mathematician could make any predictions on that basis. Not because the process itself is particularly unlikely (although it may be), but simply because a single point is not sufficient evidence from which to draw a pattern.



"For DNA doesn't function at all unless complete. It's either the final, impossibly complex but useful article, or it's incomplete and utterly useless. So, no simple evolution here."


In this section, it appears that you have been misinformed. Either that, or you have employed the words "final" and "complete" in ways that need to be clarified.
The word "final" in your paragraph again hints at your assumption that life as we know it today was a foreordained goal, but if so, you are assuming the consequent that you intend to demonstrate, which is logically flawed.
Your use of the term "incomplete" also seems ill-advised. Many genetic mutations result in deletions of base pair sequences, most of which have no discernable or detectable effects on the organism. So a molecule of DNA can easily be rendered "incomplete" without losing all function. Some deletions result in changes to the organism's phenotype that are not fatal. So again, incompleteness is not a "death sentence" for DNA.
In fact, RNA is capable of self-replication, even in the absence of deoxyribose. So "incompleteness" does not render DNA utterly useless at all.
Perhaps you were envisioning some other meanings of "final" and "completeness," as it refers to DNA, but if so, it seems to me that you have a responsibility to your readers to make your meanings known, or risk being misunderstood.

"I drop you and your family in an unpopulated Africa, without telling you where you are, or giving you a map or a compass, and I then tell you to find your way back to your sitting room. You couldn't do it."

(I actually could. Rather easily, in fact. If I had a wristwatch, a needle and thread and a notebook or pad of paper, and I was allowed a few days, I could probably even tell you (within 1000 miles or so) where I was dropped. But that's not relevant to your argument.)
More central to your point, as revealed in the following paragraphs, is that you are again envisioning evolution deliberately leading to a specific goal.
You are assuming a specific sitting room in Ireland (modern life, in your analogy) is a pre-ordained destination for your stranded traveler (an evolutionary lineage). But in order to survive, your hypothetical stranded traveler needs only to find some sitting room, somewhere. If I find a safe place to live in Kinshasa, and have children who then find a safe residence in Nairobi, I have succeeded, as far as Darwin is concerned. If they have children who settle in Cairo, and their children settle in Tel Aviv, and theirs in Athens, and theirs in Cannes, and theirs in Paris, and theirs in London, and theirs in Dublin, and theirs in Belfast, and theirs somewhere in Falls Road, and theirs in # NNN Falls Road, and theirs in the comfy-chair by the fireplace, next to the reading lamp, all the better. But if my great, great, great grandchildren end up in an apartment on 4th and Madison Street in Seattle or in a shantytown outside of Johannesburg, as far as evolution is concerned, my lineage remains unbroken.
In short, it is the notion that "things have to turn out the way that they did" and that no other possibilities exist that is derailing your argument.


"How do separate species emerge, in the process of 'speciation'?"

The most common route appears to be what Mayr refers to as "Allopatric speciation," in which a single, relatively large, ancestral population is split into two geographically isolated populations, as a result of either movement of small sub-populations to new environments (e.g. to avoid local competition for food) or when the environment itself changes to split a formerly continuously distributed population into two discontinuously distributed groups (e.g. as a result of an un-crossable river changing course or the rise of mountains or spread of grasslands).
But in this week's issue of the journal Nature, some researchers have proposed that sympatric speciation may also be a more significant factor than was previously recognized (if there are effects that interfere with panmixis, such as sexual selection or mate recognition cues within a larger, continuously distributed population).
(That article represents very new research, however, and I remain cautious.)
Once any barrier to gene flow, however permeable, exists, individuals who preferentially mate within their own group can potentially be more successful at bearing offspring than those individuals who cross the boundaries. As a result, mutations in one group will not tend to be transmitted to the other group, and the two sub-populations will diverge further. Once that process begins, speciation is more or less inevitable.


"This is counter-intuitive. For how does reducing one's ability to find a mate confer any kind of genetic advantage?"

Specialization is often very advantageous. Neither you nor I could successfully mate with a dolphin, for example. If we could, the hybrid offspring would not do as well in the sea as its "pure-bred" dolphin cohort, nor would it do as well on land as a "pure-bred" human. An organism that selects mates only from among those individuals that are most well-suited to the organism's own immediate environment will tend to have offspring that are also well-adapted to that environment.

"Conversely, not one single species of domesticated animal is unable to mate with its remote relatives."

This statement is factually incorrect. Dogs, wolves and even coyotes are the obvious example, but there are several others, particularly among the domesticated plants.
But your statement also seems to contradict your earlier point that evolution cannot explain speciation. In those cases where domesticated species cannot cross-breed with their wild relatives, speciation has occurred.
(In those few cases where they still can, such as horses and donkeys, the process of speciation is currently underway, so we can actually observe it taking place.)


"Human-triggered speciation has never occurred, despite separations of thousands of years."


This claim is also incorrect. The speciation of maize and teosinte is the most obvious counter-example from my own specialty of archaeology. But even the "underground mosquito" of London fits your criteria.



"So, is speciation naturally pre-ordained?"


No, or at least not in any way that corresponds to our intuitive grasp of what "pre-ordained" means.
Speciation is, in a sense, an "unintended consequence" of the normal process of evolution, but it is no more an "intended goal" than next week's lottery numbers or the exact final resting position of a stone that rolled down a hill.
The stone was going to land somewhere. That it landed here is interesting and worthy of study, but it was not planned "in advance."
I fear that this one mistake, your assumption that "the way things are" is equivalent to "the only possible way things could have been," is the fatal flaw in your reasoning. (See below.)


" If so, is it unreasonable to ask how, by whom and why? "

"How" this all happened is a reasonable question, and one that scientists are well-suited to at least attempting to answer.
"By whom" requires the assumption that there was a "whom," which is exactly the conclusion that you intend to demonstrate, so it constitutes a fallacy of assuming the consequent.
And the question of "why" the world is this way, rather than any of the other possible ways it could have been, is a question that is best left to theologians and philosophers, and cannot be addressed by science.


"And are such questions more or less absurd than ones about the stump in Rathkeale?"


"Absurdity" is not the relevant feature of the question. "Answer-ability" is.


"Does this question offer sufficient empirical grounds that we could distinguish a correct answer from an incorrect one?" If so, it is at least potentially a valid question for scientists to address. If not, it is best left in the hands of philosophers and theologians who are professionally trained to address such "eternal verities."

The belief that we humans are an intended goal of the process of evolution is comforting. The belief that "the way things are is the way things should be" is also potentially comforting (especially to those who like the way that things are).

Unfortunately, empirical science is not the appropriate source of information about what is "best" or what "should" be. What we wish to be true and what actually is true are, sadly often quite different things.

Religious faith is at its best when it offers advice about how we, as humans, should behave. Faith can provide guidance for proper behavior in times of doubt and it can provide solace in times of need.

Science is at its best when it provides accurate descriptions of the world around us.

When we need solace or guidance, science offers none. Science is useful for one thing, and one thing only: accurate description of the cause and effect relationships that exist between and among material phenomena. If you search for moral guidance and solace in science, you search in vain.

Faith provides guidance and comfort in abundance.
Attempting to force science to do the work of faith or faith to do the work of science degrades both and benefits no one.

I hope that you take these comments to heart. I am quite willing to discuss the issue further, should you wish.
 
2009-07-18 2:31:01 AM  
Idiocy shouldn't be tolerated. If you can't reject the concept that against all evidence to the contrary the earth was created 6,000 years ago by a bearded guy in the sky, you can't reject anything foolish.

You shouldn't be respected, listened to, or entrusted with any sort of power over anybody else, because you're a retarded dumbass who has absolutely zero powers of discernment, and you could be convinced to do any number of horribly harmful things by attaching the qualifier "God says so".

Sorry, this isn't one of those intellectually lazy "the truth is somewhere in the middle" situations. If you believe in any sort of validity to creationism, you're an idiot. And I don't think idiots should be given the same level of respect that is afforded to people who take the goddamned time to think.
 
2009-07-18 2:50:04 AM  
Sexual selection is form of design. Our ancestors were intelligent. Therefore humans are, to some extent, intelligently designed.
 
2009-07-18 2:50:11 AM  
Next up: god directed evolution.
 
2009-07-18 2:53:59 AM  
TFA: Before Darwinian dogmatists sneer the words 'intelligent design' and 'creationism', let me declare that I embrace neither concept. But nor do I reject them.

Who cares what "Darwinian dogmatists" might sneer at. Have some courage and quit trying to kowtow to losers.

And another thing. When your say we should be taking the teleological approach, you're embracing Intelligent Design because that's what Intelligent Design is -- the teleological approach.
 
2009-07-18 2:59:22 AM  
Fair point.

But I have known good, decent people, reasonably intelligent, who honestly, sincerely believe that their favorite band/sports team/movie is demonstrably better than mine.

A woman who grasps the intricacies of cladistic taxonomy, economics, 19th century literature and also gives a good beej should not be ignored just because she likes ABBA. I'll simply avoid the topic of music when talking to her.

(The truth is not "in the middle." ABBA really did, quite objectively, suck the corn out of a donkey's ass. Not just "a little," but absolutely.)

By the same token, someone who is sane, reasonable and insightful in every way, except that he also believes that a Jewish guy who was his own father sacrificed himself to himself as a way of absolving me of sins that I had not yet committed and that were only "wrong" because he said so (so there was an easier route towards forgiving me)... well, it's a crazy belief, IMO, but no worse than liking ABBA.

Does he bring anything else to the table? If so, we can talk about that.

There are some complete morans who only have one issue that interests them, and they got that wrong (in the context of this thread, you know who I mean). Granted, we can dismiss them with extreme prejudice. But I'm willing to listen to Dobzhansky and Ken Miller, both devout believers, as long as they are talking about evolution (I feel free to tune out when they talk about religion).

Being wrong about something doesn't necessarily mean one is wrong about everything, so I'm willing (for the moment) to give Kevin Myers the benefit of the doubt and see if he's willing to correct his mistakes.

If he's not willing to listen to reason, fine, onto the slush pile with him.

But- call me naive if you wish- I don't give up on people too easily.

So in that context, any sugestions about how to improve my reply? Thanks.
 
2009-07-18 3:00:08 AM  

FloydA: I've composed a reply to the author. I would appreciate feedback. I tried to remain polite and respectful (it was not always easy). It's necessarily rather long.[Snip pwnage]

I think you did a good job. You remained respectful and informative. You'll not change his mind at all, but that is not a fault of your arguments.
Also evolution exists -- I am the next stage in human evolution.

/the cheesewheel
 
2009-07-18 3:01:08 AM  
Oh sh**... Green. My previous was a reply to Cagey B.
 
2009-07-18 3:02:15 AM  
Creationism is not a theory. It isn't based on universally accepted concepts or observable data, it ignores evidence instead of accounts for it, and you don't start a hypothesis with your conclusion.
 
2009-07-18 3:02:39 AM  
Thus thread should be owned by CDP.


Jesus, FloydA, You killed any need for argument.
 
2009-07-18 3:04:07 AM  

Jormungandr:
Also evolution exists -- I am the next stage in human evolution.

/the cheesewheel


I'll grant you that a cheese wheel is a superior form of life to most of the people I meet, so you're right on that.
Thanks.
 
2009-07-18 3:05:57 AM  
Any freethinkers who want to can check out the freethinker's forum I am a part of just look at my profile. All the information is on there.

Feel free to come and go as you please.


/No ads
 
2009-07-18 3:08:53 AM  

FloydA: I've composed a reply to the author. I would appreciate feedback. I tried to remain polite and respectful (it was not always easy). It's necessarily rather long.


I think you may want to translate the usage of post hoc and other terms of logic into more general terms in case that is a boundary to understanding, but I'm not sure. I read it it perfectly fine but as I was recently reminded, not everyone's vocabulary is so strong.

SkinnyHead: you're embracing Intelligent Design because that's what Intelligent Design is -- the teleological approach.


Which is of course one of the primary reasons it isn't science.
 
2009-07-18 3:11:17 AM  

FloydA: But- call me naive if you wish- I don't give up on people too easily.


You're a hell of a lot nicer than me. Which means you'll probably go a lot further than I in this particular matter.

Myself, I don't have the patience to ask people to clarify statements that are indicative of a lack of reason and thought. And I think the burden is on the person making the statement to prove their viewpoint; it shouldn't have to be teased out of them.

Kudos to you for making the effort. You put together a good response. I hope you get somewhere with it.
 
2009-07-18 3:14:19 AM  

FloydA: A woman who grasps the intricacies of cladistic taxonomy, economics, 19th century literature and also gives a good beej should not be ignored just because she likes ABBA. I'll simply avoid the topic of music when talking to her.


I still vividly remember the sudden choking horror and bottomless feeling of falling when I found out the woman I had been dating very seriously for several months believed the moon landing was a hoax.

We learned very quickly not to talk about the subject.

/Smartest girl I've ever met too. Pity.
 
2009-07-18 3:17:22 AM  

ninjakirby: I still vividly remember the sudden choking horror and bottomless feeling of falling when I found out the woman I had been dating very seriously for several months believed the moon landing was a hoax.

We learned very quickly not to talk about the subject.


See thats the thing, there is no point to believing the Moon landing was a hoax. Who does it hurt? In today's society, no one should really give a crap.

OOOH you're not gonna let the man get one over on you by not believing! Good for you you maverick renegade.

Gimme an f-ing break.
 
2009-07-18 3:19:04 AM  
Sure they can exist side by side, if you stop calling creationism a science and evolution a religion.
 
2009-07-18 3:22:18 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: See thats the thing, there is no point to believing the Moon landing was a hoax. Who does it hurt? In today's society, no one should really give a crap.


Oh she wasn't a crazy died in the wool conspiracy theorist or anything - I don't care how smart/funny/engaging/attractive a person is, there is nothing that could keep me interested in a person that far gone.

Rather it was just one of those 'well I heard it once years ago and it sounded pretty convincing and I never thought about much' sort of beliefs.
 
2009-07-18 3:24:31 AM  

ninjakirby: Oh she wasn't a crazy died in the wool conspiracy theorist or anything


That's the problem.
 
2009-07-18 3:24:45 AM  

ninjakirby: FloydA: I've composed a reply to the author. I would appreciate feedback. I tried to remain polite and respectful (it was not always easy). It's necessarily rather long.

I think you may want to translate the usage of post hoc and other terms of logic into more general terms in case that is a boundary to understanding, but I'm not sure. I read it it perfectly fine but as I was recently reminded, not everyone's vocabulary is so strong.



Well, the article was in the Belfast Telegraph, so I'm assuming that Mr. Myers is the beneficiary of the NI, UK or perhaps RofI education system. (The BT tends to have reasonably high standards, compared to most US papers.)

If so, he's already familiar with the terms.

Cagey B:

Kudos to you for making the effort. You put together a good response. I hope you get somewhere with it.


Thanks. It's my job.

[Clicks profile]

Oh I see...

"Where we're from, the birds sing a pretty song.
And there's always music in the air."

i105.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 301 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.