(Oklahoma) Bill promotes school religion at expense of education
The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.
Mayoral Candidate Anna Falling Wants Creationism Exhibit
A push to exhibit the Christian story of creation at the Tulsa Zoo failed four years ago. Republican candidate for Tulsa mayor, Anna Falling, is bringing the issue front and center.
It’s the same exhibit and the same arguments, but now it is given from the bully pulpit of a candidate running for mayor.
“Some may ask why this issue during a Mayoral campaign? And I say why not?” said candidate Anna Falling.
7. We believe that the scientific evidence supporting Biblical creation should be included in Oklahoma public schools curricula, and if any evolution theory is taught, that both should receive equal funding, class time, and material. Teachers should have the freedom to cover creation science without fear of intimidation, reprimand, or lack of professional respect.
[...]
Curriculum
1. Curricula should include [...] the option of using the Bible as HISTORY [emphasis added] or literature text.
Study Questions Okla. School Performance
A new study claimed that one in four Oklahoma high school students couldn’t identify the first person to be President of the United States.
The study, which found that students also struggled to answer other basic questions, has some people questioning the effectiveness of Oklahoma schools.
Researchers from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs questioned 1,000 high school students and said that only 3 percent of them would be able to pass the United States Citizenship Test.
We believe that the scientific evidence supporting Biblical creation should be included in Oklahoma public schools curricula
No problem. Here it is:
That was the long version.
Repack beat me to it.
Maybe they teach creationism because it’s easier to remember.
“A new study claimed that one in four Oklahoma high school students couldn’t identify the first person to be President of the United States.”
Wrong! Listen to the newscast. According to the Channel 5 Oklahoma newscaster, only one in four students KNEW the first president of the United States. I.e., THREE IN FOUR DIDN’T!
And a creationism exhibit at a ZOO? Do patrons get to throw peanuts at Adam and Eve?
Christianity is child abuse
anotherbozo wins.
Frightening. Basically the mayor wants Tulsa’s children ignorant, fact free and superstitious. Yea! I sure wouldn’t want these poor, uneducated, soon to be adults living next door to me when I’m old. Forget the world stage, these kids will have to stay in
Tulsa where there’s a nativity scene over the by elephants at the zoo.
Leota2–ignorant people are easier to control….and control is want the Repubs are all about
Oh, good. The Boy Who Cried RAAAAACIST! exercises his anti-Christian bigotry.
In any case, it is sad to realize that in twenty first century America, the village idiots get more notoriety than the intelligent and educated among us.
I wonder if they know who the 44th president is?
My guess to their response would be either Bush or McCain
(or “that librarian chick”)
The Boy Who Cried RAAAAACIST! exercises his anti-Christian bigotry.
Since no one is born with dumb-shit ideas about the age of the earth, the way one is born with a race or a gender, your equivalence is false.
All Christians aren’t snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues fundamentalists, also. Deriding the latter is not the same as deriding the former.
But smearing Christians smears them all. I believe that God created the Universe. I don’t believe He created in 6 24 hour days — what Union would allow a 24 hour workday?
I also believe that Evolution is not random, or we’d have mutants all over the landscape, Yet two headed turtles and mice with ears on their backs make news, they are so rare. Shoot, I hardly ever see a double – yolked egg!
And notice that wording says, “1. Curricula should include [...] the option of using the Bible as HISTORY [emphasis added] or literature text. [emphasis added - fd]
Besides, what’s the harm? Maybe they’ll read something else besides Genesis, and grow up believing in right and wrong?
C’mon. Everybody knows Ronald Reagan was the first president. Well, the first REAL president handpicked by God, anyway.
Actually, there ARE mutants all over the place. Literally everywhere. You yourself are a mutant. There are literally hundreds of mutations that occur from each generation to the next. That is how variation occurs. The vast, vast majority of them do absolutely nothing, but just because it is not visible to the naked eye does not mean it did not occur.
The Bible cannot be taught as history – it is NOT a historical document; allowing the option of it being taught as historical is wrong-headed at best.
Don’t you get it? If God is allowed back into the schools, He’ll make all the kids smart and then they’ll know who George Washington is.
There are many, many incidents in the Bible that are hidtorical, just as there are many cuneiform, hieroglyph, and papyri documents that are false.
If I were a kid in Oklahoma, I would immediately start a Church of Five. It would worship the Number Five. Its premise would be that no other number exists in the universe but five, and anything purporting to show the existence of any other number goes against God’s Holy Writ. Then, if this law passes, I’d answer “five” for every single question on every math test, and claim religious discrimination when they flunked me.
I’d answer “five” for every
single questionfive questions on every math test,Blasphemer!
Yea, like the OK fundies just want the bible to be an option in teaching science…sure they do. Bullshit. If these rednecks had their way, they’d institute the bible as the law of the land with no room for dissent. After all, Gawd wrote it so it must be true.
The same warped 14th century mindset lets people build ‘museums’ touting creationism as scientific fact. What a joke. No wonder the rest of the world laughs at the stupidity of the ignorant Americans.
I saw the list somewhere that showed the percentage of the population that accepts evolution as fact, and the USA was near the bottom of the list. That’s just fucking embarrassing.
But smearing Christians smears them all.
um, not feeling maligned here, Frank. And it’s not smearing Christians to point out that a vocal subset of Christians in this country have some very wacky non-scientific ideas that they are trying to force into science classrooms.
Maybe a separate theology elective. Not in science, good lord no. Nor in history – Suetonius and Josephus yes, Bible no.
I also believe that Evolution is not random, or we’d have mutants all over the landscape, Yet two headed turtles and mice with ears on their backs make news, they are so rare. Shoot, I hardly ever see a double – yolked egg!
Gawd, Frank, I’ve seen you post things that are misguided and wrongheaded, but never anything quite so brain-dead stupid. We do see mutations all over the place, all the time, but mutations only survive and propagate if they provide some survival advantage. The vast majority do not.
There are many, many incidents in the Bible that are historical, just as there are many cuneiform, hieroglyph, and papyri documents that are false. – Frank
So? Tale of Two Cities was set in a historical period, in actual cities; this doesn’t mean Sydney Carton was real. It is possible to write a book that is based on events. But this doesn’t mean that it’s meant to be taken literally.
Look, I am not the Ambassador from the Vatican.
If people want something taught, they go to the Board of Education and ask for it to be taught. That’s how we get drug abuse prevention programs, and child safety programs. Unfortunately, we also get “taught” that people cause global warming, as there was never any pre – Industrial global warming; and the President telling the kids they can help the President get his agenda passed if they do all their homework.
The Board of Education may be the last bastion of democracy. Don’t like it? Join the PTA.
“or we’d have mutants all over the landscape”
You do not understand what Darwin wrote, Frank.
Mutation is the vehicle for evolution over time, and as someone else pointed out there are mutants everywhere.
Go take a basic biology class, skippy.
You don’t need to take basic biology. All you need to know is that the human body is a perfect vessel created by God and that if anything within said vessel breaks down it is because you are a sinner who deserves it.
Christians get to teach their mythology all they want in their own schools and churches. They can even teach it as history AND literature. Why isn’t that good enough for them?
Couldn’t agree more. If you don’t want your kid in a secular, taxpayer funded public school, put them in a private school.
But don’t taint the education of kids from reality-based families, the one who will actually become doctors and scientists.
Like I said , I am not here to defend anything but the right of parents / taxpayers to go to the Board of Education and petition them to teach , or stop teaching, whatever they want.
I have always believed that for the “slow, random process” of evolution to work, the earth would have to be skatey – eight bajillion years old, not three billion.
But that’s just me. I don’t believe stuff just because they say it on Nova.
Jaim, I’d be willing to bet that I know more about evolution than you do, as fabulistic as it is.
It’s just I have read it described by skeptics , not members of the First Church of Charles Darwin, such as yourself … Skippy.
“Jaim, I’d be willing to bet that I know more about evolution than you do, as fabulistic as it is.”
As the son of a biologist, you’d be wrong.
But don’t take my word for it — ask scientists who actually study this stuff. Evolution is as much of a fact as gravity is, until proven otherwise by verifiable data. Creationism, nor Intelligent Design, has made its case as such. ID might hold some water as a philosophical or existential premise, but not as a scientific one. Animals have adopted to their environments over time, but not always in ways that provided for their long-term survival. If ID was correct, no animal would ever have gone extinct except for natural catastrophes. And we know this isn’t the case.
And no, school boards don’t get to choose to teach whatever they want. They have an obligation to educate, so that kids can later become educated professionals, make lots of money, have kids, buy a house, contribute to the public good, develop a cure for cancer, etc. Teaching bullshit “science” is a miscarriage of this duty.
Jaim, first we already had this argument in another thread. But, Evolution is as much of a fact as Gravity is You Lie! Sorry couldn’t resist a Wilson moment here.
They have an obligation to educate, so that kids can later become educated professionals This is just plain laughable.
Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics
“The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.” New York Times – March 12, 1978
Robert Wilson, Nobel Laureate in Physics
“Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.”
1992
George Smoot – The most famous of these is COBE (the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer satellite), which has shown that the cosmic background radiation intensity has a wavelength dependence precisely that of a perfectly absorbing body, indicating that it is the relic radiation from the Big Bang origin of the Universe.
On proof of his theory stated, “If you’re religious, its like looking at G_D.”
Jaim, you fail to understand, that the books of Moses cover Astrophysics as well, Creation from the beginning time. What is the point of the above quotes, at one time there was nothing, we know the big bang happened, and the Universe is expanding, and if you go backwards to the beginning, you would come to a point of singularity, prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy – nothing. It was created.
George Smoot – In 2003 he was awarded the Einstein Medal.
and in 2006, Nobel Prize in Physics. Forgot these details
Why do people fear Creation? I believe it is a mental issue, if G_D existed, then most people would have to be concerned on how they behaved during their life, and G_D’s writings would once again become the norm. People would not be able to live in the age of impulse, deceit, and decadence. Most people would have to radically change the way they live. By denying G_D, and believing in nothing, there is no judgment day. So party on Garth!
As the son of a biologist, you’d be wrong.
Jaim, that sentence is wrong logically and grammatically. (You really teach English?)
Logically, your knowledge of a subject has nothing whatever to do with your father’ knowledge of a subject. Did he sit you down and teach you everything he knew – or even half of what he knew?
More importantly, how do you know that he taught you more than I know?
Grammatically, your sentence says, “As the son of a biologist, you’d be wrong.”
But I am not the son of a biologist (you’re sure you teach English?)
“Why do people fear Creation?”
It’s not fear. Creationism is a perfectly valid religious belief. Just don’t call it science.
When you’re sick, do you go to a doctor or your priest?
“Logically, your knowledge of a subject has nothing whatever to do with your father’ knowledge of a subject.”
You never spent any time with him obviously, but it was a subject that I grew up hearing a lot about. Also helped him edit some of his papers for publication, and those of his colleagues to make some extra bucks as well.
And I’m not claiming to be a scientist, but as a laymen I do enjoy the subject. Please show me anything I’ve said in this thread that is wrong relating to science, and how evolution is just as “true” as gravity is, and that neither Creationism or ID has managed to assert themselves as having greater explanatory power.
Better yet, please point me to some work published in peer-reviewed journals that shows Evolution is not a scientific fact. Please, I’d really love to see you attempt to do this.
I don’t know about, Jaim, once the Doctors have done all they can, it’s time for a Priest.
A great line I read once was, When you die, do you want to say, “It doesn’t matter if I die now, at least they passed one payer healthcare”?, or do you want to say, “I can die now, I am going back to God”?
“once the Doctors have done all they can”
Meaning you go to a doctor. Wow, a straight-forward answer to a simple question from one of the local trolls.
But please, get to work finding a single paper in a reputable, peer-edited journal that shows that Evolution is not true, meaning its explanatory power is less than those of Creationism or ID.
Or do you just want to change the subject?
From Science Daily
Ancient Anthropoid Origins Discovered In Africa
(Oct. 14, 2005) — The fossil teeth and jawbones of two new species of tiny monkey-like creatures that lived 37 million years ago have been sifted from ancient sediments in the Egyptian desert, researchers have … > read more
Little Teeth Suggest Big Jump In Primate Timeline
(Aug. 5, 2008) — Tiny fossilized teeth excavated from an Indian open-pit coal mine could be the oldest Asian remains ever found of anthropoids, the primate lineage of today’s monkeys, apes and … > read more
New Fossil Primate Suggests Common Asian Ancestor, Challenges Primates Such As ‘Ida’
(July 1, 2009) — A new fossil primate from Myanmar (previously known as Burma) suggests that the common ancestor of humans, monkeys and apes evolved from primates in Asia, not Africa as many researchers … > read more
New Fossil Reveals Primates Lingered In Texas
(Oct. 20, 2008) — More than 40 million years ago, primates preferred Texas to northern climates that were significantly cooling, according to new fossil … > read more
Big Brains Arose Twice In Higher Primates
(July 9, 2008) — After taking a fresh look at an old fossil, researchers determined that the brains of the ancestors of modern neotropical primates were as small as those of their early fossil simian counterparts in … > read more
Seems to me, if anything is evolving, it’s the Theory of Evolution. What’s new with gravity? Anything changing over there?
Meant to say “peer reviewed” instead of peer edited.
Gravity is also a theory. But you’re laboring under a delusion about science — it’s not so much what’s fact and what’s false, but about competing theories. Those theories which are verifiable through evidence and experiment are considered to be scientifically true, with the understanding that at some point what is considered to be scientifically true may be replaced by another theory.
Newton’s theory of gravity is actually wrong, thanks to Einstein. But in a pre-Einstein world, Newton was “true.”
“Theory” isn’t a bad word for scientists. And the Theory of Evolution (along with the post-Einstein Theory of Gravity, or Quantum Mechanics if you prefer) is perfectly true. Creationism and ID are not.
But there are actually some scientists who post here, so I’ll defer to them. We’ve had this conversation before Frank, and you were shown to be completely wrong. Guess what? You still are.
I don’t know what you’re talking about , Jaim . We don’t have conversations. You talk like you know everything, when you I don’t ; and like I don’t know anything, which I do.
I don’t care to hear any more nonsense about how evolution is a theory — but it somehow manages to change with each new bone discovered. And I don’t care to hear about how a theory of Natural Science the explains the diversity of species also disproves Creation.
If I am “wrong” , what am I wrong about?
I don’t care to hear any more nonsense about how evolution is a theory — but it somehow manages to change with each new bone discovered.
Evolution doesn’t change with each new bone discovered. The articles you cite demonstrate that the theories about The Evolution of Man change as new fossil evidence emerges, and there is nothing unusual about that in science, as the economist John Maynard Keynes said when asked about a similar ‘inconsistancy’ in his economic theories:
We seem to go through this on every thread where evolution is mentioned, but here goes one more time:
-evolution and natural selection are not theories, they observable processes. Organisms do mutate and mutations that provide some survival advantage in a particular population and environment tend, over time, to propagate throughout that population. Since Darwin’s time we have been able to confirm what he could only speculate about: that those mutations can be caused by natural processes that we can observe and understand down to the molecular level.
-what is theoretical a) that these processes are sufficient in themselves to explain the past and present diversity of species on the planet and b) the pace and particular pathways of that process. The articles Frank cites only deal with varying theories in category b.
-theory a) will probably always remain theoretical, because to confirm it conclusively we would have to have a time machine and many thousands of years to process data. It could easily be falsified by contrary evidence; for instance if we found human fossils in precambrian rock strata we would have to seriously re-think it. But so far, after hundreds of years of looking, we haven’t found that. It remains the best scientific explanation for how speciation could happen by natural processes.
-miniscule bits of (b) can, and regularly are, confirmed and falsified by new evidence that is uncovered. Maybe the genus homo started to emerge 3 million years ago rather than 2; maybe this australopithecine was not a direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens as previously thought. These are the sorts of things that Frank’s articles address. Scientists argue about them all the time, and will continue to do so, but they do nothing to confirm or refute (a). I think it’s a pretty safe speculation that all the scientists Frank cites would agree that (a) is the best scientific explanation for how speciation can occur.
-because (a) is, of necessity, theoretical, there will always be people who are dissatisfied by that and want more definite answers, and that is fine, but unless other explanations proposed are based on observable, uniform natural processes, they are not scientific. They may be correct, but they are not scientific. Because that’s what science is: the attempt to find explanations for what happens in the universe based on observable and uniform natural processes.
-at various times in our history people have looked at natural phenomena – eclipses, earthquakes, major floods, etc. – and said there’s no way that can be happening by normal natural processes. Something outside the system – a god or what have you – must be stepping in. So far all those people have turned out to be wrong. It could be that in the case of speciation they are finally right, but if you’re a betting man the odds are against it.
-I have never had a problem with people thinking that there must be a supernatural clockmaker who winked the universe into existence, or who crafted the marvelous double helix and sent it on its merry way, or who nudged the process here and there to make sure it produced the human brain and the opposible thumb. They are welcome to that belief, and they may be right. The problem comes when they confuse that belief with science, when it is not. A problem also arises when they think that the outcomes of science must conform to a literalist interpretation of their favorite holy book. That is what is happening in Oklahoma, and the children of Oklahoma will be scientifically handicapped as a result.
Frank, I wish you well in your journey towards giving up alcohol. It’s obviously not working, so please seek help.
Here is the case for evolution by Bernard Shaw, in terms that even a rural hick could understand, let along Frank:
From the preface to Back to Methuselah
OK, that’s enough Jaim. Go fuck yourself, you waste of air and light.
I am not saying I don’t believe in evolution, or in natural selection.
So stop with the 10th grade biology, already.
As for religious beliefs not being science — good !
Science is a way of classifying and naming things. It is as useful as a ruler. It measures things, and then we decide what the measurements mean.
I derive more comfort out of knowing there is a God, than you ever will from knowing the purported anatomy and physiology of eohippus.
and Dark Avenger, even a rural hick would know that the proper usage is “let alone Frank” not “let along Frank”, you dolt.
Goddamn, Frank, you’re an ignorant putz.
Also, quit correcting peoples’ language skills. You’re not above it, Frank. (”You talk like you know everything, when you I don’t”). Fucking idiot.
(And yes, I know that last item I typed was a sentence fragment. Would you like to criticize me by writing that I should have typed, “You are a fucking idiot”?”
But seriously, Frank, how do you “know” there’s a God? I love how people throw around this word, “know”. You know that the Christian god exists in the same way that Hindus know that Vishnu exists, or how the ancient Greeks knew that Zeus exists. Simply put, you don’t know. You do not know. You think, you believe, you guess… you don’t know.
You have no good reason, no verifiable evidence, to suggest that Yahweh exists. And science keeps on making his hiding places smaller and smaller. Eventually (and I think we may be at this point already) there will be no room for God.
If God exists, Frank, then he either is the blind watchmaker or he is completely and utterly superfluous, useless, and impotent. In the former case, he’s not the Christian god (and requires no worship, and doesn’t give a shit about gay marriage or abortion), and in the latter case, he’s not really “God”, is he?
I am not saying I don’t believe in evolution, or in natural selection.
So stop with the 10th grade biology, already
If you’re in no need of 10th grade biology, then I suppose it was your mind-bogglingly ignorant twin who uttered this utterly laughable statement:
I also believe that Evolution is not random, or we’d have mutants all over the landscape, Yet two headed turtles and mice with ears on their backs make news, they are so rare. Shoot, I hardly ever see a double – yolked egg!
I assume you’ll put the twin back in his straighjacket and never allow such nonsense to be posted under your name again. Moving on…
As for religious beliefs not being science — good !
Great, then we agree that religious beliefs should not be taught in science class, especially religious beliefs masquerading as science such as creationism and “intelligent design”, which is what is fixin to occur in OK.
I derive more comfort out of knowing there is a God, than you ever will from knowing the purported anatomy and physiology of eohippus.
I didn’t realize it was a competition, Frank. I like to think that knowing the physiology of eohippus is in no way incompatible with believing in God. If your beliefs provide you comfort, terrific. But once again, maybe we can agree that the purpose of a high school science class is not to provide students with “comfort”.
One more thing, science is much more than a way of classifying and naming things. It is a system for formulating and testing ideas about how and why things happen based on observable evidence. As such, it has been extremely successful in expanding our knowledge of the universe in areas where the Bible and other sources of religious inspirtation have nothing valid to say. Where the question “why” takes us beyond the realm of observable evidence, such as “why does the universe exist”, science has nothing to say.
All your insults have not moved me… You merely repeat yourself and add a new invective.
If you think that science is somehow superior to religion in determining “truth”, then you are engaged in a childish argument. I have said this before, but you were too locked into the Scientific Method to even comprehend it. Hardly anyone gets to apply the steps of the scientific method to what is in their world. Which one of you has confirmed that trees’ leaves in autumn do not change colors, but instead lose green chlorophyll? You read it in a book , and you believe it.
Who here has seen a pygmy?
The world, and everything in it, is about belief. Are any of you familiar with the work of Charles Fort? He spent years mocking the arrogance of scientists who think that “We don’t know – yet”, and “We know everything” are the same thing.
Your problem is not you are smart because you believe in science, and I am dumb not to worship at the altar of science. Your problem is that you don’t even have a nodding acquaintance with religion and the truth it can lead you to. And you are the poorer for it.
Where the question “why” takes us beyond the realm of observable evidence, such as “why does the universe exist”, science has nothing to say.
Exactly.
And I can study science, and learn all about it, and enjoy it, as I have for nearly 60 years.
BTW, Mambochicken, I only correct the grammar, usage , and spelling of people who call me dumb, because they look so foolish. I don’t need to correct the spelling of people who are just making a point, even if I disagree with them.
I don’t read the Bible for the Astronomy and Geology – I read it for inspiration and guidance.
Evolution is … no, not going to bother.
“And I can study science, and learn all about it, and enjoy it, as I have for nearly 60 years.”
And don’t understand it at all. Sixty years of complete futility. Epic fail.
“Your problem is that you don’t even have a nodding acquaintance with religion and the truth it can lead you to. And you are the poorer for it.”
First off, Frank, I know a fair bit about religion. But that’s besides the point. I’ll bite on the hook that you threw out there… What “truth” can religion lead me to, Frank? How is my world “poorer” for rejecting this “truth”? Honest questions.
Well sorry for the insults Frank, if only because they give you the opportunity to play the victim and distract from the real issue.
If you think that science is somehow superior to religion in determining “truth”, then you are engaged in a childish argument.
Never said that, or thought it. I do think that science is superior to determining “truth” in the realm in which it is capable of operating.
Hardly anyone gets to apply the steps of the scientific method to what is in their world.
True, however, there is a complex social system which has been evolving over the last several millenia whereby those who do have the opportunity share verifiable results and expose them to refutation. I have not verified personally that leaves change their appearance in the fall due to a loss of chlorophyll, but many scientists have, and if there were evidence to the contrary I am confident that one of the thousands of botanists working in a highly competitive field would have published it by now. That is somewhat different from believing that leaves change colors because fairies sprinkle them with pixie dust. If someone published verifiable evidence for that theory and no refutation was forthcoming in the scientific literature, then I would view that theory as having equal likelihood. But no one has done that, to my knowledge.
Are any of you familiar with the work of Charles Fort?
I think Forte is a fascinating character, but his modern enthusiasts tend to be the type who see no middle ground between the rabid scientific positivism common in his day and the sort of thought-free relativism that says all “theories” are equal. In the current debate between evolutionary theory and creationism this exhibits itself in the claim of creationists that theories based on observable evidence and falsifiable theories should inspire no more confidence than those based on literal readings of ancient scriptures, and that therefore the latter should share equal time in the science classroom.
Your problem is not you are smart because you believe in science, and I am dumb not to worship at the altar of science
Your problem is that because you worship at the altar of religion you can’t imagine that what we do to science is anything other than “worshiping at its altar”.
Your problem is that you don’t even have a nodding acquaintance with religion and the truth it can lead you to. And you are the poorer for it.
I reject that statement in all of its particulars. You haven’t a clue about my religion. If you can point to any ignorant statement I have made about religion, as I have done to your ignorant statements about science, I’d be obliged.
You look like shit for 60, Frank.
And you’re a dumbass when it comes to science.
Science and religion can co-exist, but you can’t start making claims for the explanatory power of religion that aren’t there. Like you said up-thread, you go to a doctor if you’re sick, not a priest. And the SCOTUS has ruled that parents who do otherwise with their children are breaking the law.
Fuck you, Jaim, and the horse that rod in on you. You have some nerve, you know that? You think you can just say any rude, crude and disgusting thing you want, because Oliver doesn’t (with much justification) toss you out of here?
It is obvious you are trying to provoke me, but I will not be taking the bait, because you would enjoy that too much. You are a petty, small minded individual, with a ruined world view, because your life has no meaning.
You have been trying to pick a fight with me for weeks , saying tasteless, classless things about my recovery from alcoholism. Now you tell me, I look like shit for 60. Who fucking cares what you think? You want to date me?
Jaim. do me a favor, will you? Please never address me again, or mention my name ever again. You are a blight on this blog.
This argument ends as it always does. You have demonstrated one thing, and one thing only: Science is never satisfied unless it rules.
It is obvious you are trying to provoke me, but I will not be taking the bait,
Seems to me like you just did.
Science is never satisfied unless it rules.
Can’t speak for all scientists, but I’d be satisfied if science just ruled where it was supposed to rule, which includes, you know, science classes.
Science is never satisfied unless it rules.
What in God’s holy name are you blathering about?
I think what Frank is trying to say is “you all are poopyheads if you don’t kowtow to my superior wisdom on all subjects, even though I’d much rather snort and charge whenever Jaim waves his red cape than bother to defend my positions.”
Well, Frank, you’ve demonstrated an ability to find errors in spelling which you should use to proof-read the demonstration signs of your fellow conservanuts before the next teabag party.
Who here has seen a pygmy?
Who here has seen an albino Chinese? I have, but you’d be a fool to take my testimony as the only proof of their existence.
As for worshiping at the altar of science, you’re sadly mis-informed, the reality is that one only has to believe in falsifiablity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Frank loves to whine about how few people here can match his oh-so-powerful intellect, and yet it ends the same every time. People make logic-based arguments, cite solid sources, tell him about their professional backgrounds and how they pertain to the argument, and what happens?
He pulls an Eric Cartman and goes home.
Whiny-ass titty baby. Every fucking time.
I am right here, Jaim, and you are an immature swine, who disgraces his parents and his country, every time he opens his mouth. Funny how you talk about other people making “logic-based arguments, cite solid sources, tell him about their professional backgrounds and how they pertain to the argument”. You never do, because you can’t.
Yes, I am right here, pissant. In your fucking face.
Every fucking time.
And, let me just say that is easy to feel pressured when four people throw arguments at you from different perspectives. You go and research stuff, and then toss it out there: “What do you say to this?”, as if I am a prodigy playing chess with four masters.
And you wonder why I back pedal? In addition to the fact that you all have insulted me repeatedly in each and every comment, there is Jaim, who lives to annoy me, because clearly he can best me at nothing.
Half the time, I am correcting erroneous suppositions you have made about my comments. Then one of you finds another point to distort and argue about in that correction. It becomes a feeding frenzy. I could easily say, “Believe whatever you fucking want,” and forget this whole thing.
In fact… believe whatever the fuck you want, OK?
Shorter Frank: WHA! WHA! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
You claimed to know more about me than Evolution. Yet you clearly don’t, dumbass.
People simply point out your ignorance on a given subject (it’s impossible not to) and you flip out. Same story every time.
You like to dish it out, but you can’t take it. Typical Republican. Typical moron. Typical little whiny bitch.
For the nth time, please tell me one wrong thing I’ve said about Evolution or the nature of scientific theory. (I.e., “theory” doesn’t mean “it isn’t true,” at least when scientists use the term.)
Frank DiSalle: and the President telling the kids they can help the President get his agenda passed if they do all their homework.
You referring to the addresses to students made by Pres Bush Sr, or Reagan?
‘Cause I didn’t see anywhere in Obama’s recent address where he did that and I’m pretty sure you didn’t either, Frank.
Frank DiSalle: I have always believed that for the “slow, random process” of evolution to work, the earth would have to be skatey – eight bajillion years old, not three billion.
Which just goes to show how little you actually understand about evolution. And how little you care to understand about evolution.
I don’t believe stuff just because they say it on Nova.
And why would you? Just because stuff said on Nova is backed up with evidence, fact and experimental proof doesn’t mean it should be considered more credible than a frequently translated book that asks you to believe things like people turning into salt just because.
Seriously, what are those folks at Nova thinking?
Frank DiSalle: I don’t know what you’re talking about , Jaim .
Yeah, that’s obvious. But don’t let it stop you frm speaking against it as if you did.
I don’t care to hear any more nonsense about how evolution is a theory — but it somehow manages to change with each new bone discovered. And I don’t care to hear about how a theory of Natural Science the explains the diversity of species also disproves Creation.
In other words, Frank doesn’t want to actually understand what he’s trying to debate about. Frank has no interest in understanding what Science actually is. He just want’s to speak against it with authority.
Frank DiSalle: OK, that’s enough Jaim. Go fuck yourself, you waste of air and light.
sigh. Frank’s usual reasoned response.
Frank DiSalle: Fuck you, Jaim, and the horse that rod in on you. You have some nerve, you know that? You think you can just say any rude, crude and disgusting thing you want, because Oliver doesn’t (with much justification) toss you out of here?
It is obvious you are trying to provoke me, but I will not be taking the bait, because you would enjoy that too much.
Only because your taking it would be a bluff…
This argument ends as it always does. You have demonstrated one thing, and one thing only: Science is never satisfied unless it rules.
Whereas Religion is very tolerant. Especially in Oklahoma.
For the record – the earth is 4.5 billion years old, give or take. Thought I’d mention this, as I actually got to do some radiometric dating back when I was young.
I actually got to do some radiometric dating back when I was young.
Then you should know the rules, like no gamma emissions until the 3rd measurement.
Only because your taking it would be a bluff…
I suppose you want to start that up again?
Just can’t let go, eh?
And, no, I don’t want people who have a vested interest in destroying religion’s place in the Public Square explaining to me why there is no place for religion in a child’s education.
Did it ever occur to any of you super – smart, wise intellectuals that this argument would be over in 30 seconds if Comparative Religions were taught in school? But, thanks to the trap YOU have laid, the mere mention of God in a classroom brings the full wrath of the ACLU Pharisees upon you.
Don’t hector me about open – mindedness. I studied the Bible as literature in a State college in 1963. I’ll bet they’re not teaching it now — and not because Genesis says God made the world in 6 days.
This is the anti – religious Left at work: Nothing more and nothing less.
Jaim, I know why you’re an asshole.
But Martin, you clearly are a disappointment. What a lack of discipline!
“And, no, I don’t want people who have a vested interest in destroying religion’s place in the Public Square explaining to me why there is no place for religion in a child’s education.”
Sweet Allah, talk about moving the goal-posts.
Making sure public schools teach real science does not infringe on anybody’s right to freedom of expression. And why would you want those dirty socialist public school teachers in charge of your child’s religious development in the first place? You are more than welcome to put your kid in a private, religious institution if you wish. Just don’t expect me to subsidize it with my taxes.
Believe it or not, the separation of church and state as formulated by Jefferson was just as much about protecting religion from the government as it was about keeping religion out of the government.
And you try to lecture people about history? What a drunken buffoon you are Frank.
“if Comparative Religions were taught in school”
Is is taught. And I’ve taught it myself. Stop making shit up about things you know absolutely nothing about. A 9th grade world studies course should cover the basic tenets of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
“I studied the Bible as literature in a State college in 1963. I’ll bet they’re not teaching it now”
Jesus, how can one man be so wrong about so many things, all the fucking time? There are plenty of courses that study the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-gita, what have you, as works of literature. I know I took a few of them.
Dumb. Impotent. Ignorant. You’re a trifecta of fail Frank.
“Did it ever occur to any of you super – smart, wise intellectuals that this argument would be over in 30 seconds if Comparative Religions were taught in school?”
No, it hasn’t occurred to me. The reason why: this argument wouldn’t be fucking over in the slightest.
Your side is trying to argue for Creationism and Biblical horseshit to be taught in fucking SCIENCE classes, you stupid putz. What is wrong with you?
I don’t hear the crazy fundies arguing for Comparative Religions course. Hell, I think that sort of course might be valuable, even. I cannot remember anyone complaining about a course like that, Frank. No one. We are trying to tell you that the Bible and theological concepts are not, in any way, scientific. And therefore shouldn’t be taught alongside science, such as evolutionary theory.
The comparative religions course statement was out of left field. You just pulled it out of your ass, didn’t you, Frank? You have no shame. You are an intellectual lightweight. You’re a sick old fool without a shred of respect for honest argument. You are a putz.
And, no, I don’t want people who have a vested interest in destroying religion’s place in the Public Square explaining to me why there is no place for religion in a child’s education.
Frank, this isn’t difficult. There is a place for religion in a kid’s education. A government-run school is not that place.
Jaim, I no longer have any interest in anything you have to say. You are toilet paper stuck to the shoe of humanity. You are an insulting, abusive, insensitive freak, who deserves to be treated exactly as you treat others.
I disagree with you, Quaker.
You can all go home now . I am removing the bull’s eye from my back.
You’re a bloated, imbecilic baby Frank. And it’s been fun showing everyone what a fuckwit you are.
Actually Dark Avenger, it was a beta ray spectroscopy experiment with Rubidium. I used to be smart enough to know what it all meant, back in the day. Back when I was young, 60 pounds lighter, and with fewer bills. Ah, those were good times.
Bible as literature… I’ll bet they’re not teaching it now
Wrong again. Dozens, if not hundreds, of high schools and colleges teach it, and pinko-commie professors even write books about how to do it, books published by right-wing fundamentalist organizations like the Modern Language Association. Hasn’t stopped a bit of the fundamentalist effort to force religion into science classrooms.
Frank DiSalle: And, no, I don’t want people who have a vested interest in destroying religion’s place in the Public Square
I am sure that, were you to actually listen to what is said by the other side rather than presume you know what they want and presume that what the want is to attack you, that you’d find they are not “destroying religion’s place in the Public Square” but rather pointing out that in America it was never supposed to have one.
Did it ever occur to any of you super – smart, wise intellectuals that this argument would be over in 30 seconds if Comparative Religions were taught in school?
Yeah, it’s a shame that there aren’t anyschools or teachers anywhere from the east coast to the west offer any courses on instruction in that.
Oh, wait.
Frank DiSalle: I studied the Bible as literature in a State college in 1963.
And I don’t think you’d find anyone here objecting to its being studied as literature now.* But that’s not what’s being pushed, is it?
* (As it is, so just what is your point anyway?)
.
.
And back on Comparative Religion, for a moment. Are we actually to expect that folks (such as apparently yourself) who want the religious belief of creationism taught as Science would be willing to accept a class where the Koran and teachings of Buddha were given equal weight to the Bible?
Frank DiSalle: Jaim, I no longer have any interest in anything you have to say. You are toilet paper stuck to the shoe of humanity. You are an insulting, abusive, insensitive freak, who deserves to be treated exactly as you treat others.
You keep saying things like that. And you keep responding.
So why should we believe what you say?
“Are we actually to expect that folks (such as apparently yourself) who want the religious belief of creationism taught as Science would be willing to accept a class where the Koran and teachings of Buddha were given equal weight to the Bible?”
Or taught as sciences? What about the many other creation narratives; should they be taught as sciences also? Like the one about how the earth sits on the shell of a big turtle
abanterer, I was trying to make a funny, YMMV.
History’s first draft: Newt Gingrich but no liberals
Textbooks being written for Texas students appear to lean to the right
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6581189.html
By denying G_D, and believing in nothing, there is no judgment day. So party on Garth!
Works for me.
“Works for me.”
Me too, except for the “believing in nothing” part. I’m not a fucking nihilist. Not believing in God doesn’t mean that you believe in nothing. Impaler, you’ve gotta educate yourself a little (by which I mean, a fucking lot).
mambo Impaler, you’ve gotta educate yourself a little (by which I mean, a fucking lot).
Nice, you say you believe in G_D, But. Your side is trying to argue for Creationism and Biblical horseshit to be taught in fucking SCIENCE classes, you stupid putz. What is wrong with you? , the more accurate question is what is wrong with you.
Once again did you read my posts, here or anywhere else in this site? I think not. Above I posted 3 Nobel Laureates in Physics, and at least two of the three are proponents of Intelligent Design.
Evolution is a theory that does not hold water, lets look at Humans, the work that has been done comes to the conclusion that we “humans” have a common ancestor. We are told this in Genesis. The reason I posted the three Nobel Laureates’ is the creation of the Universe, If G_D created the heavens and the earth, then why do you question, the creation of Adam and Eve? Or, do you still we came from apes? Children should be taught both, there is no harm in this, more has been proven true about the the books of Moses, than the theory of evolution.
“Not believing in God doesn’t mean that you believe in nothing”. So you worship false idols, why am I not surprised? How Jungian of you, your lack of wit, and wisdom is astounding.
Impaler, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
First off, I don’t believe in God. Any god. Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Zoroaster, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Krishna, Ra, Neptune, Cthulu… I don’t believe any of them exist.
mambo: “Not believing in God doesn’t mean that you believe in nothing”.
Impaler: “So you worship false idols, why am I not surprised?”
You’re a fucking clown. I worship NOTHING, dumbass. Nothing and no one. However, I do “believe” in things. I believe in the power of science to illuminate our world. I believe in mathematics, in physics. I believe that the designated hitter should be outlawed. I believe that you’re a dumbass.
“…more has been proven true about the the books of Moses, than the theory of evolution.”
Holy fuck. You cannot be serious. That’s it, I’m calling it, you’re a joker. Good one. You had me fooled for a minute. Nice prank.
We are told this in Genesis….
…by a talking snake.
Tell ya what, Impaler. On the off-chance you’re being serious… Without citing the Bible or Christian theology of any sort, please explain to me why I should believe in Yahweh, but not any one of thousands of other gods that have and do “exist” in the minds of human beings on this planet.
If you do that, you are a fucking magician.
I’m eager to see what happens next.
Impy, does God have feet?
more has been proven true about the the books of Moses, than the theory of evolution.
such as?
Here are some of the things that have been proven true about the theory of evolution:
The theory predicted that there would be a biochemical mechanism for producing mutations without intentional external intervention. That has been proved true
The theory predicted that propagation of mutations through selective survival would be observable. It is.
The theory predicted organisms would be newly discovered that represented intermediate evolutionary stages between known organisms. They have been.
The theory predicted that the fossil record would reveal intermediary stages between organisms in a stratified chronological sequence. They have.
Not bad for something conceived by puny mortals, rather than by the God of Israel.
What you and Frank don’t seem to understand, Imp, is that science is the business of NOT saying “well a god must have done it” whenever we can’t understand something. I’m sure a lot of Thales’ pals were telling him “don’t bother trying to predict an eclipse, the gods will make the sun disappear whenever they want. But he went ahead and did it, and not a single eclipse has been observed in the millenia since that couldn’t have been predicted eons in advance. “God” is the fudge factor of a lazy scientist. As for the big bang, the proper scientific response to the question of what caused the big bang is “we don’t know”. Since there are a number of competing theories for what was going on in the first few seconds of the event, not even a nobel laureate in physics can say scientifically that they know what caused it. Penzias and others may have their opinions, they may be strong opinions, and they may be right, but opinions are not science.
And I may be wrong, but I believe that what Penzias at least has said about an intelligent designer refers to the big bang, and not to intelligent design at work in the business of evolution and speciation.
“Evolution is a theory that does not hold water”
I’ll make the same offer to you that I made to chicken-shit Frank, Inhaler. Please direct me to one published, peer-reviewed paper that says Evolution isn’t true.
Ah Jaimy, must be early for you, No, you provide my first challenge, show me the missing link.
As to my earlier post, I realize now you have a problem with subtlety, “not needing to borrow my car” LOL. No, I provided the post above listing Nobel Laureates that are involved in and believe in Intelligent Design, They are far smarter than you, (and peer reviewed) Creationism is more the Human, it is in fact creation of the entire universe, So if G_D created the Universe, (he says he did), then it is a good assumption that he created earth, and the living things upon it (he says he did these things as well). Then, 1. I would like to see proof of life created in a lab from chemicals, 2. I would like to see the missing link. 3. I would like to know why evolution in humans has stopped, (again not natural selection) Evolution. 4. explain to me how a new species (human) occurred, was the mutation a male, if so how did the species propagate without a female and vise versa? We know from the Human Genome that we have a common ancestor, Adam and Eve? G_D already told us this, why is this not proof of G_D? And then a man wins the Nobel Prize for Physics, under the theory that before singularity, there was nothing, not space, no time, no matter or energy. Then it existed, do you get that! It didn’t exist, then it existed, the Universe. This is creation Jaimy, G_D says all of this in the Pentateuch scribed by Moses over 3,000 years ago.
and peer reviewed
You seem to be missing some links.
QB Impy, does God have feet? Yes, he says that we were made in his image, and on my meeting with him, he had feet as well.
Indeed, you can use google I provided the names and quotes for you though, do you get a Nobel Prize in physics without peer review I doubt it, but don’t know for sure.
Indeed, you can use google I provided the names and quotes for you though, do you get a Nobel Prize in physics without peer review I doubt it, but don’t know for sure.
We’re not discussing Nobel Prizes in physics, we’re discussing Creationism or Intelligent Design, or whatever you’re blathering about. Any peer reviewed research in those fields? I can’t seem to find any with Teh Google. Perhaps you could steer me in the right direction. Besides, if you want to present a half-decent argument, you really need to show your work.
So, missing links?
1. I would like to see proof of life created in a lab from chemicals
Give scientists a couple billion years and you might give your wish, or maybe not. Neither of us knows.
2. I would like to see the missing link
Not sure which one you’re referring to, but here’s one. Not missing now, of course, but it was before it was discovered.
3. I would like to know why evolution in humans has stopped, (again not natural selection) Evolution.
Who told you it had stopped? Granted the existence of Rush Limbaugh and creation “scientists” might make you think it’s moving backwards, but….
4. explain to me how a new species (human) occurred, was the mutation a male, if so how did the species propagate without a female and vise versa?
Presumably each new mutation on the path to Homo Sapiens was able to breed with its non-mutated relatives. That is how mutations are propagated throughout a population.
We know from the Human Genome that we have a common ancestor, Adam and Eve? G_D already told us this, why is this not proof of G_D?
In Raiders of the Lost Ark Indiana Jones says that Cairo is in Egypt. Turns out that Cairo actually is in Egypt. Does that prove the existence of Indiana Jones? Belief in a common ancestry for humankind is a pretty standard motif in worldwide mythology. Could be they all had prescient foreknowledge of the human genome, or it could be an attractive inference from their experience with human breeding. Calling Dr. Ockham.
And then a man wins the Nobel Prize for Physics, under the theory that before singularity, there was nothing, not space, no time, no matter or energy.
The operative word there is “theory”, and there are several competing theories for that first few seconds. Even if we assume that theory to be true, the question of who or what winked that big bang into existence is still a question that science is incapable of addressing. Even if the answer is agreed to be “God”, it is still an unsubstantiated leap to assume that the same God has intervened in the process of selective adaptation.
To teach divine divine tinkering with evolution as an equally valid theory to natural processes is equivalent to teaching that Poseidon striking the earth with a trident is an equally valid explanation for earthquakes alongside what geologists tell us. It may be right, but it ain’t science.
Inhaler, you know nothing about science. And it’s your right to wallow in ignorance. But don’t force your sky-god worship on my kids, especially in publicly funded schools.
But don’t force your sky-god worship on my kids, especially in publicly funded schools.
And yet, you insist that this is not a campaign against religion.
Yes, he says that we were made in his image, and on my meeting with him, he had feet as well.
And did God ever use those feet to walk on the earth the way a human does?
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green
And was the holy lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among those dark Satanic mills
Bring me my bow of burning gold
Bring me my arrows of desire
Bring me my spears o’clouds unfold
Bring me my chariot of fire
I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
‘Til we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land
‘Til we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land
I thought you were ignoring me Frank?
But no, it’s not a campaign against religion. It’s a campaign for quality science education in our publicly funded schools.
But I’ll ask a second time, why do you want to entrust commie pinko public school teachers with the religious education of children? Why do you hate religion so much you goddamn atheist?
And yet, you insist that this is not a campaign against religion.
It is a campaign against religion being preached in the science classroom.
Perhaps someday you will sit in paradise, with all your physical infirmities healed and your mind unclouded, and you will understand the difference.
I ignored you until I thought you might be reasonable, Jaim.
I shall not make that mistake again.
Wilbur, you mean when I am perfect I will be like you?
At this point, Proverbs 16:18 (from the non-scientific Bible) springs to mind.
Wilbur, you mean when I am perfect I will be like you?
No, I’ve got my own faults, but when you’re perfect you’ll probably be better than you are now.
Meanwhile, back here on earth, any substantive response beyond “you’re wrong, poopyhead!” to any of the substantive arguments I and others have made, I’d be glad to hear them.
I have been in many shapes
before I attained a congenial form
I have was a shield before leonidas
I have been a tip of a spear
I have been the foam of a wave
before the mighty trireme
I was in Canaan
before Absalom was slain
I was a centurion
at the crucifixion
My Original country
is the region of the summer stars
I am thunder
Whose origin is not known
I lived 9 times before
Gwion the little
and 90 times after
my creator created me,
But of nine-formed faculties
Of the fruit of fruits
Of the god of the Beginning
I was created by him
I was trained by Bellatrix
Before I became immortal
I am waiting for
battle once more
I am Impaler!
Impaler, you make baby Jesus cry with your stupidity.
I have a question to those supporting creationism. How would you feel if we taught the Muslim version of creationism in class?
Wilbur,
1. No
2. Here is a bird wait, a dinosaur, wait no earliest bird, no wait. I’ll wait for the scientist to stop arguing over this one, but it is not a fact, not even close. Try again.
3. Well, really 4,000 years of recorded history and nothing, frankly it’s a little disappointing.
4. No. event the speciation argument admits to the FACT that separate species cannot mate. So the question stands which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Belief in a common ancestry for humankind is a pretty standard motif in worldwide mythology. I agree, but only one of them got it in the right order, and scientifically accurate, by comparison, and that is the Pentateuch.
1. The death of the first born in Egypt, scientifically explained,
2. Parting of the red sea, explained,
3. Human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA, pointing to Eve the common mother,
4. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, happened, nothing will grow there to this day.
All in the Pentateuch from over 3,000 years ago. Now G_D knows people don’t understand, and those who believe the Earth is 4000-6000, are wrong (embarrassing), but to discount something that is being verified by science as mythology is wrong.
The Steady State theory, “atheist” theory there has no beginning and no end; everything is and always has been. now what we do know, there is a beginning and an end, at one time there was nothing, then everything, This Wilbur is not even debated in the highest circles, including Stephen Hawking who has immense knowledge of this. Now some may say the “wink” (moment of creation) happened some another way, but it is creation none the less. That is why the Steady State theory was advanced, think of Science faced with Creation, the Steady State folks knew that if the big bang theory was proved out, that it would lead to creation which, like it or not is the pathway to G_D.
According to the Nobel Prize committee, “the COBE-project can also be regarded as the starting point for cosmology as a precision science.”
Oh but I believe it was G_D who said to John, “I am the Alpha and Omega”, kind of sums it up doesn’t it.
But thanks for the debate Wilbur, you are a true gentleman. Oh, I hope you liked the poem. – Impaler
Zython, the three Semitic religions have a common ancestor in Abraham, and having been married in a Muslim ceremony, having discussed these issues with Clerics in Jakarta, and America, I do not believe that to be an issue.
I am not suggesting teaching the Bible, or Koran in class, but only an overview of how these things intersect, children can handle this, just as they do in Indonesia, Just as some scientists do here.
Jaim, Impaler, you make baby Jesus cry with your stupidity.
“Dear Lord Baby Jesus, I want to thank you for this wonderful meal, my two beautiful son’s, Walker and Texas Ranger, and my Red-Hot Smokin’ Wife, Carley”
-Ricky Bobby
Impaler, where did you get your science degree?
I always thought that the belief in the existence of God was based on faith and not on science. Isn’t faith the absence of hard knowledge? Isn’t the belief in God a personal leap of faith which is at the root of Christianity? If one could prove God’s existence scientifically, then what would be the point in having faith. I don’t get it.
‘If you do not believe, then you will not understand.’ Faith seeks understanding: faith first, understanding afterwards ~ St Augustine
You make it sound like a person couldn’t believe in G-d if it were proven to be true.
I present to you tnese points to ponder:
1) As the “origin of man” goes further and further back in time, the day might come when man’s origin coincides with that of all life – what would that mean?
2) Evolution is more philosophy than science, based on the idea that things improve over time, and the better will survive, simply because the ability to survive provides it own standard. But what if species survive simply because they live long enough to reproduce?
Ecology, as I understood it when I was in high school before it became the “anti – civilization” it is today, was based on the idea that all of nature is interrelated. How can that be so, if there are species that contribute nothing, but are simply able to reproduce their own kind?
“Evolution is more philosophy than science, based on the idea that things improve over time, and the better will survive”
Wrong. Darwin himself never said creatures evolve into “better” versions of themselves beyond adapting to local conditions (usually involving finding more food and avoiding more predators).
“But what if species survive simply because they live long enough to reproduce?”
Actually, this is pretty much what evolution dictates. It’s a random process that takes place over time as mutations that favor survival allow those animals to breed and pass along the mutation.
I’m sorry, but you’re presenting Evolutionary Theory as a caricature of itself, then you get all whiny when people don’t “take you seriously.”
“As the ‘origin of man’ goes further and further back in time, the day might come when man’s origin coincides with that of all life – what would that mean?”
We evolved very slowly over a long period of time from the first single-cell organisms. Not sure what you’re asking. That evolution is pretty amazing, far more so than the notion that the Norse gods formed us out of pieces of clay?
Again, for what I think is the third time, I’ve asked you to show us some current papers by working biologists that invalidate evolution as a scientific fact. Why can’t you find any? Because evolution is scientifically a fact. And sure, I’ll grant it has philosophical ramifications, but I would love to see you try and get a BS in biology or chemistry by arguing that what you’re doing is more philosophy than it is science.
“if there are species that contribute nothing”
Name one. There’s no such thing, because any creature can provide protein for a bigger one.
Again, you’re arguing against a thoroughly wrong-headed understanding of evolution, then claiming victory when in fact you haven’t proven or shown anything other than your own ignorance.
How about Prof Larry Azar’s “Evolution and Other Fairy Tales”?
AuthorHouse. Bloomington, 2005
Azar’s a philosophy prof, isn’t he?
Frank and Impaler, you are both idiots. Please, never ever ever breed.
Oh shit. Frank, I forgot that you have kids. I pray to Jesus Christ Almighty, the magician of the Bible and the David Copperfield of his day, that you never, ever advised your children on scientific matters. ‘Cause as I see it, your children would have either grown up horribly misinformed and delusional (like yourself), or they would have lost all respect for you when they actually understood the truth.
Oh wait. The latter is fine by me. Your kids ought not have any respect for you, you decrepit monkey skeleton.
Frank and Impaler, it’s not your ignorance that’s offensive, it’s your pride in your ignorance. You wear it like a shield.
Impaler: If G_D created the heavens and the earth, then why do you question, the creation of Adam and Eve?
I don’t accept your premise that God created everything but mvoing past that, the reason to not believe in the creation of Adam and Eve as fully formed humans is that there is massive amounts of physical evidence that contradicts it.
There are actual bones, which you can hold in your hands, that show a progression of forms to modern humans. There are also actual, physical bones and fossils showing progression of forms for other species as well.
While, on the other side, there’s a book that says people spontaneous turn to salt, that the entire world was covered with water, that man spontaneous arose in an unchanging form which we’re supposed to believe despite tons of physical, consistent evidence to the contrary because, y’know, there’s this book.
Impaler:Children should be taught both, there is no harm in this,
Fine. Teach children both. Teach them about the stories in the Bible in literature classes and philosophy classes and world history classes and comparative religion classes. And teach evolution in science classes.
See, Imp, no matter how much you insist it is true, the Bible and Creationism aren’t science. Science, by definition, requires proof, testable hypothesis, evidence. And the story of Adam and Eve as told in the Bible doesn’t have any of that. It simply doesn’t. While evolution does.
So, by all means, teach kids about the Bible and it’s role in the world and the things people believe because of it. I don’t think anybody has objected to that. but you keep insisting that it be taught as science. It’s like looking at a shape with four right angles and four equal sides and insisting children be taught it’s a circle. It just isn’t.
more has been proven true about the the books of Moses, than the theory of evolution.
See, right there. Utter bullshit that you keep insisting is true. And it just isn’t.
Where is proof of the burning bush? Where is proof of the Red Sea splitting? Where is proof that two million Hebrews lived in and around Goshen for nearly 500 years? Are there any records in 18th Dynasty Egypt of the kind of devastation 10 plagues would have wrought? Have any of the graves, campsites, settlements, etc that would inevitably been left by two million people over the course of 40 years wandering the desert been found?
Wilbur,
1. No
No what? I suppose it depends on how you define “life”. If you define life as something created by God, then no, scientists are not going to do that, by definition. If you define it as something that can consume, grow, locomote, reproduce, and evolve then it’s well within the realm of possibility.
2. Here is a bird wait, a dinosaur, wait no earliest bird, no wait. I’ll wait for the scientist to stop arguing over this one, but it is not a fact, not even close. Try again.
Whether scientists classify it as a bird or a dinosaur or some, it has characteristics of both, which is what evolutionary theory predicted we would find. Of course it is possible that God created it and the thousands of other transitional fossils discovered (along with vestigial organs in many current animals) just to to test our faith by luring us into the sin of evolutionary thinking, but that does not change the fact that this is a score for evolutionary theory as a predictive model. Does it prove evolutionary theory on the grand scale? No, but I already agreed that that would never happen conclusively. But it remains a fact that evolutionary theory is the best current scientific explanation for the diversity of life, and that it has been corroborated by discoveries and experimental results.
3. Well, really 4,000 years of recorded history and nothing, frankly it’s a little disappointing.
4000 years is a wink of the eye in evolutionary terms, and the most popular theory nowadays is that evolution does not proceed at a continuous and constant pace, but by fits and starts. If an organism is well adapted to its environment or, like us, capable of adapting itself to various environments technologically, there’s really no impetus for it to evolve much.
4. No. event the speciation argument admits to the FACT that separate species cannot mate. So the question stands which came first, the chicken or the egg.
“species” is a taxonomic classification that we impose on nature, rather than an intrinsic property of organisms. Lets imagine that we could look at the history of species X and see that after mutations a, b, and c, it produced species Y. It may be that X and Y cannot interbreed, but Xa will be able to breed with X, Xab will be able to breed with Xa, and Xabc (i.e. Y) will be able to breed with Xab. If any of the mutations a,b,c blocks the mutated organism from breeding with the previous stage then the mutation will not be propagated and Y will never emerge. But not all mutations block interbreeding. This is why your chihuahua and your great dane can get jiggy and produce funny looking puppies.
Belief in a common ancestry for humankind is a pretty standard motif in worldwide mythology. I agree, but only one of them got it in the right order, and scientifically accurate, by comparison, and that is the Pentateuch.
I am aware of no scientific literature arguing that the first creature with all the features of homo sapiens had to be a male, or that the first female was created from his rib. Perhaps you can point me to some.
1. The death of the first born in Egypt, scientifically explained,
2. Parting of the red sea, explained,
There are, I believe, theories (of varying plausibility) for how these events might have occurred naturally, (i.e. without the need for the intervention of an angry god) though none that they actually happened in those ways. But I’m willing to stipulate in general that the pentateuch refers to some actual historical events, but so does Raiders of the Lost Ark. What’s your point?
3. Human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA, pointing to Eve the common mother,
Mitochondrial DNA suggests that all living humans share a common female ancestor, but I’m aware of no evidence that her name was Eve and that she lived in a place called the garden of eden. Also, she might not have been the first Homo Sapiens. Her father, or grandfather, might have been the first full member of our species, but produced no other offspring with surviving descendants.
4. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, happened, nothing will grow there to this day.
There are destroyed cities in the region of the dead sea, but there is no archaological consensus on which, if any, are Sodom and Gomorrah, or on the reasons for destruction. There is also archaeological evidence that Troy was destroyed in the 13th C. BC. Does this mean that Achilles’ talking horses that Homer tells us about actually existed?
Again, my point is not that there is proof that God does not exist, or that he didn’t rain fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, my point is there is no scientific reason for thinking so.
The Steady State theory, “atheist” theory there has no beginning and no end; everything is and always has been. now what we do know, there is a beginning and an end, at one time there was nothing, then everything, This Wilbur is not even debated in the highest circles, including Stephen Hawking who has immense knowledge of this. Now some may say the “wink” (moment of creation) happened some another way, but it is creation none the less. That is why the Steady State theory was advanced, think of Science faced with Creation, the Steady State folks knew that if the big bang theory was proved out, that it would lead to creation which, like it or not is the pathway to G_D.
Ironically, the big bang theory depends on scientific postulates, including uniformity and the conservation of matter and energy, that presume the absence of divine intervention. If we believe in a God who changes the laws of physics willy-nilly, then there’s no reason to believe the Big Bang ever happened.
But thanks for the debate Wilbur, you are a true gentleman. Oh, I hope you liked the poem. – Impaler
Back at you, Imp, I loved the poem. Yours?
1) As the “origin of man” goes further and further back in time, the day might come when man’s origin coincides with that of all life – what would that mean?
That would obviously mean that we’d have to seriously re-think this evolution business. But since on current evidence the genus homo (not even homo sapiens or sapiens sapiens) is at most three million years old or so, and the earliest life three billion or so, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
2) Evolution is more philosophy than science, based on the idea that things improve over time, and the better will survive, simply because the ability to survive provides it own standard. But what if species survive simply because they live long enough to reproduce?
This, as I think has been pointed out, is based on a very outmoded idea of evolution
Ecology, as I understood it when I was in high school before it became the “anti – civilization” it is today, was based on the idea that all of nature is interrelated. How can that be so, if there are species that contribute nothing, but are simply able to reproduce their own kind?
I too, wonder what you’re talking about.
How about Prof Larry Azar’s “Evolution and Other Fairy Tales”?
Haven’t read it. From the description on Amazon it sounds like yet another attempt to discredit evolutionary theory by ad-hominem trashing of Darwin and by pointing out that evolutionary theory can be, and has been, misapplied in the past (as can happen to any theory, or religious text). I won’t be rushing out to buy it.
Not that I believe for a moment that you’d accept any evidence shown. You’ve made it quite clear that your mind is closed and undoubtedly were absolute proof shown to you, you would reject it because it doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived beliefs of what must be. (A rational, scientific person, by contrast, would take something that contradicts their beliefs and consider whether their beliefs should be changed. They would acknowledge that they don’t know the final word on everything and that beliefs must, yes, evolve in the presence of new evidence.
But, we can try.
Starting all the way back in 1953, scientists have been able to build the building blocks of life in the lab. Amino acids are created in laboratory
And Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
And more recently, they are getting closer to being able to create something that does meet the definitions of life. Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Scientists Create New Life Form in Lab
“Missing Link” is largely a misnomer used by the media to more easily relate issues of paleontology to their readers and seized by folks like yourself who will never be satisfied until a full skeleton for every generation of the last 50,000 years has been produced. It overlooks the numerous “missing links” that have been found, and the likelihood that some stages in the evolution of Man may just never be found because the conditions existing at the time were not conducive for fossils to be preserved. See this article for more.
Who said it has? We have, as you note, taken many steps to counter natural selection (eyeglasses, neo-natal ICUs, drugs to counter hemophilia, etc) and humans live a long time. It would take some time for any evolutionary shift to propagate thru the generations and be known. And Darwin published less than 200 years ago. Still, there is some evidence for evolution still going on.
I can’t, being as it’s clear you’re still expecting “Man” to have arisen spontaneously in a single generation. Yvor questions demonstrates that you want proof of evolution without being able to refer the basic tenants of evolution such as slow changes that occur over considerable time.
It’s like a Martian talking to a fungo!
Impaler: And then a man wins the Nobel Prize for Physics, under the theory that before singularity, there was nothing, not space, no time, no matter or energy. Then it existed, do you get that!
And did the man say that the cause of the burst of creation at the Big Bang was “God”? Because unless he did that, unless his work says “and the mechanism for this was God” you cannot use the Nobel Prize winner to support your claim.
Frank DiSalle: And yet, you insist that this is not a campaign against religion.
Let me get this right. Religion is being forced into a place where, buy the highest law in the land, it doesn’t belong. And it’s those who resist that who are accused of being on the attack?
When a burglar forces his way into your house, does he then get to complain that there is an unfair “attack on burglary” going on?
Impaler: 1. The death of the first born in Egypt, scientifically explained,
Explained where? What is the explanation?
2. Parting of the red sea, explained,
Explained where? What proof are you providing?
3. Human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA, pointing to Eve the common mother,
Which doesn’t contradict at all a non-Eden description of history. In fact, actually supports that the common ancestor was not a Eden-style Eve who looked just like modern women but was rather something closer to earlier, less evolved,forms. Where is your proof that the common ancestor looked just like modern women?
4. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, happened, nothing will grow there to this day.
Again, what are you providing as proof of this?
I’ve provided several links, as have some others, to things that refute what you say and provide the support that you asked for for things that we say.
Can you do the same? Can you provide the proof that you imply exists as we have, or are we just to take what you claim has been “scientifically explained” on faith?
Impaler: <i.I am not suggesting teaching the Bible, or Koran in class, but only an overview of how these things intersect, children can handle this,
And, again, nobody is objecting to this being taught in class. Or that children couldn’t handle it. The objection is specific and clear: That is not be taught in a Science class as a valid scientific theory. It simply isn’t and shouldn’t be taught as such.
Frank DiSalle: 1) As the “origin of man” goes further and further back in time, the day might come when man’s origin coincides with that of all life – what would that mean?
That the Everest-eclipsing mountains of evidence that life existed long, long, LONG before man ever arrived have all been mis-interpreted.
Just because the “origin of man” may have moved from (making up numbers here, but I’m close enough for the example to be valid) 30,000 years ago to 50,000 years ago as additional fossil evidence has been discovered and our understanding of what “origin” means changes doesn’t mean the date would EVER get pushed back BILLIONS of years to when the first living forms appeared on earth.
You can measure something and find it an inch long, and then re-measure it and find you didn’t actually have it fully unwound and it’s actually two or even three inches long. But it doesn’t mean you’ll ever find that it’s well over 15,000 miles long (a billion inches).
2) Evolution is more philosophy than science,
No. Religion is more philosophy than science. Evolution is science. You’re continually equating religion and science is clearly continuing to confuse you. It’s as valid a position to take as saying steam and a block of titanium are the same.
Ecology, as I understood it when I was in high school … was based on the idea that all of nature is interrelated. How can that be so, if there are species that contribute nothing, but are simply able to reproduce their own kind?
You’re presuming that there are species that contribute nothing, that have no interactions with their environment. And that is simply not the case. You can’t name one. Even the organisms discovered at the extreme depths of the ocean interact with their surroundings.
The conclusion you’re trying to draw from your false start is baseless. It’s akin to saying “Since there’s this room in my house where gravity doesn’t exist, anything put in the room will rise to the ceiling.” Well, OK, they might if gravity didn’t exist in that room. But it does, so your conclusion that things would rise has nothing to do with reality.
I have been in many shapes
before I attained a congenial form
I have was a shield before leonidas
I have been a tip of a spear
I was there when Jesus Christ
had his moment
of doubt and pain.
Made damn sure that Pilate
washed his hands
and sealed his fate.
Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess my name!
Wilber,
1. No, Man cannot create life in a lab. The scientific theory of Creation cannot be proved, either way, G_D or science.
2. Of course it is possible that God created it and the thousands of other transitional fossils discovered (along with vestigial organs in many current animals), like the appendix ? Okay I will stop picking on Darwin, he just got this wrong. I would consider as stated in other posts a belief in Natural Selection, and for that matter Macroevolution. Just not microevolution.
The funny thing is I remember in my Sixth grade class learning about the building blocks of life, DNA. How all living things where made of these building blocks, does that mean I am related to a daffodil if you go back far enough, then a evolutionist would have to say yes, that something came out of a primordial sludge. This I reject, the problems with the science/religion argument, is just as much the fault of the religious right as the Science left. Observations have been made about the universe and things in it that cannot be explained (violate various laws, including the laws of physics). Nor direct influence by G_D to effect things out of the current laws, be proved (beyond a shadow of doubt). I believe G_D created the building blocks (lego’s), If you where going to “create” life would it not make sense to create a system for life to prosper in as well? It is excepted that Species have a beginning and an end, just as the Universe had a beginning, and at some point an end.
3. So it takes an immeasurable amount of time, for the Theory to work, therefore it cannot be proved as we have only existed for a wink of time. Convenient, so the Theory of Evolution can be proved in a billion years?
4. The only species that can effect the outcome of a mutation and pass it through are self propagating organisms. This is why your chihuahua and your great dane can get jiggy and produce funny looking puppies. When a horse mates with a donkey the offspring is sterile, still a problem, mules cannot propagate. Hybrid offspring dies out. Dogs changed due to natural selection this I do not have a problem with, therefore they can create ugly pets, but they can interbreed.
Does this mean that Achilles’ talking horses that Homer tells us about actually existed? Not true how do you explain Mr. Ed? LOL, and Troy was regarded as a myth until discovered by a German.
Ironically, the big bang theory depends on scientific postulates, including uniformity and the conservation of matter and energy, that presume the absence of divine intervention. I believe that this assumption is the problem, my quest for G_D was not based on blind belief, it was the question, are signs of G_D’s presence in the affairs of the planet, and the stars. To me the theory of the existence of G_D is observable, and documented as a reference point for man, Just as Homer Iliad was regarded as a myth in the 1900’s, this ultimately proved false, Homer’s description as chronicled led to the rediscover of Troy, thus the books of Moses chronicle the history of man and the universe, and though not proven, the empirical data and observations lead to a logical discussion as to possibility, hence the debate.
Let me be clear, I do not want the new testament taught in the class room or other testimonials from other religious books. But to deny the question of G_D’s existence with the data on hand today, is not education, it is a lack thereof, children should be taught critical thinking not indoctrination in a field of study that has been wrong more often than right. The children should be taught a quest of knowledge as I was taught in school, give them the questions, and the smart kid in a class my outshine us all, and find the proof one way or another.
Sorry Wilbur for the brevity to your response, I am doing this from work.
Duros62, LMAO, I did not rember that song! New found respect for the rolling stones. Its 6th century meter, cool!
Holy fuck, Impaler, you know nothing about science. Jebus.
No, Man cannot create life in a lab.
Says who? You? God? Perhaps man hasn’t created life yet, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Many years ago people thought flight was impossible, then look what happened… the Wright Bros. fucked it all up for everyone.
Okay I will stop picking on Darwin, he just got this wrong.
No, you ignorant jackass, he didn’t. The theory holds, and all the fossil evidence, and all the DNA evidence, points towards evolutionary theory being correct. Are there details to be worked out? Sure. But that’s what happens when you’re dealing with science. You investigate, you collect data, you corroborate or challenge previous conclusions, and then you revise your worldview to fit the fucking evidence. You DON’T start with an endpoint (e.g., God did it) and then work backwards, trying like a dope to fit things into your worldview.
The only species that can effect the outcome of a mutation and pass it through are self propagating organisms.
Dumbass. Let’s say, for the ease of simplicity, there’s a population of crocoducks living on an island in the Pacific. They are the only crocoducks in the world. Then, one day, a massive hurricane blows through the island, killing many, sparing a few, and shipping a few others to a nearby island (previously uninhabited by crocoducks). The conditions on the islands are slightly dissimilar – different food availability, different water sources, etc. On Island A, the crocoducks continue as they had before; on Island B, the population of crocoducks adapt to the new conditions. Previous phenotypes (e.g., a large, strong jaw) prove to be maladaptive here on Island 2, and so smaller-jawed crocoducks are propagated. With the advent of many years and many generations and many mutations along the way, the two populations will drift apart in their genotypes. Eventually, this drift may be large enough so that they cannot successfully interbreed. BAM! There are two species, where once there was one.
It’s not that fucking hard to understand.
(and I know, everyone else, I simplified a lot)
Troy was regarded as a myth until discovered by a German.
Translation: Since Troy turned out to be a real place, and not a myth, then the Bible is true and God created everything including man and evolution is false and Darwin was a big no-nothing poopyhead.
What the fuck are you talking about?
The only species that can effect the outcome of a mutation and pass it through are self propagating organisms.
Dumbass.
Yeah, what mambo said. Plus? It’s affect not effect.
SQ, sorry as I said, Brevity, and as stated in other post spelling not my thing, thanks for the correction.
In the earlier posts between me and Wilbur we were discussing the mamobchicken and egg problem, I understand Speciation thanks.
mamochicken Okay I will stop picking on Darwin, he just got this wrong. Another reading comprehension problem here. the key to this was like the appendix? Let the anger surge through you.
As I said I understand Speciation, but am trying to move to the larger point with Wilbur. I have to type fast, (in between work).
Sean D. I will be posting what you seek, this is taking time to give you a list of works, from scientists to support my views, the works are numerous, but I am only selecting PhD level scholars. Will post in 24hrs or so, as time permits.
Sean D, and Wilbur, thanks again for the civility.
Impaler: The scientific theory of Creation cannot be proved, either way, G_D or science.
OK, so now you’re backing off and admitting Creation as an act of God can’t be proven.
Let me be clear, I do not want the new testament taught in the class room or other testimonials from other religious books.
Then you’re MORE opposed to teaching the Bible in school that the folks on the left here are. Our objection was to it’s being taught as Science. You apparently are opposed to it being taught in schools at all.
Impaler: Sean D. I will be posting what you seek, this is taking time to give you a list of works, from scientists to support my views, the works are numerous, but I am only selecting PhD level scholars. Will post in 24hrs or so, as time permits.
Looking forward to it. Based on what’s gone before, I can’t see anyone here shifting their view much. (You, for example, seem so utterly fixed in your belief that evolution is a crock that I don’t think you’d change your opinion at all even if absolute, undeniable, heaven-sent proof were placed in your hand.) But I would much rather debate this based on the support you can find than on a you said we say basis.
Sean D, and Wilbur, thanks again for the civility.
Same.
No, Man cannot create life in a lab.
And you know this how?
Okay I will stop picking on Darwin, he just got this wrong.
Darwin’s theory predicted the discovery of organisms that could at least be interpreted as intermediary between known forms. Archaeopteryx is one such organism discovered subsequent to Darwin. You may not be convinced that Archaeopteryx is an intermediary form, but I don’t see how that translates to “he just got this wrong.”
How all living things where made of these building blocks, does that mean I am related to a daffodil
Yes it does. Do you have something against daffodils?
Troy was regarded as a myth until discovered by a German.
That’s right, but what Schliemann did not prove was that much else in the Iliad had any basis in fact. Are you telling me that you believe in Achilles’ talking horses? That Zeus weighs out people’s souls on Mt. Olympus with a little pair of scales? That the goddess Aphrodite spirited her son Aeneas off the battlefield when he got wounded? Seems to me you’re making a fundamental logical error here, Imp.
I believe that this assumption is the problem,
I don’t understand. Are you saying that you question the scientific assumptions on which the theory of the Big Bang depends? Then why believe in the Big Bang?
Let me be clear, I do not want the new testament taught in the class room or other testimonials from other religious books. But to deny the question of G_D’s existence with the data on hand today, is not education, it is a lack thereof,
Okay, if that’s all you’re on about, I agree: a science teacher has no more business telling children that God doesn’t exist than he has telling children that He does exist. Neither one is his/her job. Still don’t see what that has to do with teaching biology.
Impaler, I missed that addition of yours about the “appendix” first time through, so misinterpreted what you were saying. But before you expatiate further on this “mistake” of Darwin’s, be sure to read this.
Impaler: Sean D. I will be posting what you seek, this is taking time to give you a list of works, from scientists to support my views, the works are numerous, but I am only selecting PhD level scholars. Will post in 24hrs or so, as time permits.
Impaler? Impaler? Beuhler?
Impaler still hasn’t told us where he got his biology degree either.
/sniff
Yeah, thought so, Impaler. Wasn’t holding my breath to see that list of (cough) “numerous” works that support your view.