Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[mustangguy289]

Just like the days of our lives.....

[Denny]

If that was your best attempt to address it, I'll just wait to hear from someone who is serious about it.

[stephen4785]

-Evolution as inferred from the fossil record is not even a theory. Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Evolution is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea.

-Yes, I know that the physicists insist that the 2LOT is only about heat transfer, but in chemical contexts it is acceptable to express it in terms of entropy. And entropy changes imply changes in randomness, which implies an inherent direction that a process will take (without outside intervention). I don't see how one can divorce the implications from the law.

-Once again the only answers I get is telling me I'm wrong. Well, PROVE IT. You call me a liar? PROVE ME WRONG. If your ideas could be proved then there would not be this discussion.

I give you evidence and you have no refute except to call me ignorant and a liar (Very scientific). You say I have unsupported assertion's and when I give you them you say they are not valid. It's like arguing with a wall.

And of course we know that science is never wrong...flat Earth hypothesis, Phlogiston theory, Geocentric theory of the solar system, Newton's corpuscular theory of light.

So, defend your position with valid scientific arguments...

[Maddhattter]

That is, by far, the biggest effort to beat around my post that I've EVER seen!

No, it’s not. There was no real effort involved. That’s the joy of having the evidence on my side.

At what point is there anything NOT true?

By definition, anything that is not true.

Again, you're automatically placing all of it on the "untrue" shel to start with.

Agreed. That is where everything starts, or everything would have to be believed until it could be disproven. It’s called the null hypothesis. Disbelief is the default stance.

At what point do I take anything out of context? I think I adequately addressed the reasoning for why I can see that it MIGHT not be 6 consecutive days, for argument's sake.

It’s not that you take it out of context, you blatantly admit to changing the definitions on words when there is no indication that they meant anything other than what they said. It’s not a contextual issue, it’s outright redefining words.

It is ovbious that there are MANY that don't need scientific evidence to either make or accept truth claims.

Appeals to popularity carry no weight. Even if everyone claimed something to be true without evidence, then everyone would still be wrong as they wouldn’t be able to show that they have a truth.

The only time it poses to be a problem is with people demanding the scientific evidence. You know, like the part of my post that you skipped around?

Oh, yea. You mean the part that I didn’t skip because it was irrelevant? I remember that part. It’s where you made a bunch of unsupported assertions and I stated

Ok, so this is what you believe. There’s no evidence to back up your claim that:

1. Moses meant anything other than exactly what he said.
2. That a god/gods had any hand in the process.

Just because something isn’t excluded explicitly, doesn’t make it scientifically valid, as science requires evidence to support your claim. Again, I don’t care what you believe, it’s when you make truth claims that the problem arises. You cannot determine truth without evidence.

That’s right. I didn’t skip it. I addressed it.

Who said I made a scientific theory?

No one, because you didn’t.

I associated what was written with scientific claims? Are you seriously not smarter than this or is this your best attempt to sound like you're saying something intelligent without actually doing so? (BTW, I bet some people will actually be fooled by your dancing)

There has been no dancing. You have repeatedly made appeals to popularity to imply validity in your claim. There was no reason to assume that that was not your attempt this time.

I love the "close to truth" shit. It give you a little out when needed. LOL

I know. The way stuff actually works is always convenient, isn’t it?

I'll just wait until someone else posts and addresses it then. Thanks for taking up some more time.

All your points were addressed. You made unsupported claims, and then offered more unsupported claims. So, if I didn’t address something, it’s because you brought nothing to the table.

[exlude]

And creationism says that we were created. Very very basic.

Lmao, yeah the "basic" part is not what makes it a law. I've got a bad feeling you're trying to make that connection.

God created us out of the dust of the earth, and when our bodies are reduced to the bare basics, we're dirt. The difference being is that we're not saying we know everything and we're open to science to explaining the details, you won't find a Christian that hates science

How true is that, really, though? What about the points that "science" explains that don't fall in line with your beliefs?

all we're saying is we know where we came from.

Something you cannot say

Well, I wouldn't lie. Saying you "know" where you came from is about as far from the truth as could be. More, it's a bastardization of the word that you justify through faith.

[Forever_frost]

And creationism says that we were created. Very very basic. God created us out of the dust of the earth, and when our bodies are reduced to the bare basics, we're dirt. The difference being is that we're not saying we know everything and we're open to science to explaining the details, you won't find a Christian that hates science, all we're saying is we know where we came from.

Something you cannot say

[exlude]

But there is a LAW of gravity, it's not a theory.

And you guys are still dodging the point. You say evolution is proven, yet it's still a theory. You say creationism is false, but do not know from which we came. Which of us have more of a sense of faith that we know the answers?

You're not trackin'...

The law of gravitation is very, very basic. It, simply, says that gravity exists and gives the formula to calculate it.

The actual ins and outs of gravity is still very, very much a theory. Much like the ins and outs of evolution is still a theory. The difference being is that there isn't a fundamental part of evolution to express in a mathematical equation. That's why we have the law of gravity, due to the mathematical equation.

[Forever_frost]

But there is a LAW of gravity, it's not a theory.

And you guys are still dodging the point. You say evolution is proven, yet it's still a theory. You say creationism is false, but do not know from which we came. Which of us have more of a sense of faith that we know the answers?

[exlude]

On the topic of creationism, what I've been seeing is this: Microevolution occurs, we can witness it, yes there are links missing in our theory from a single cell to where we are, and we can't explain what started everything but YOU are the delusional ones because I believe only what is verifiable, nevermind the holes in my theories.

Oh, and comparing evolution to gravity? We have a LAW of gravity, Evolution is a theory

Actually, how gravity actually works is still a theory. The law of universal gravitation has to do with how you calculate gravitational pull.

[Forever_frost]

On the topic of creationism, what I've been seeing is this: Microevolution occurs, we can witness it, yes there are links missing in our theory from a single cell to where we are, and we can't explain what started everything but YOU are the delusional ones because I believe only what is verifiable, nevermind the holes in my theories.

Oh, and comparing evolution to gravity? We have a LAW of gravity, Evolution is a theory

[Denny]

Except there is no stretch, at least not scientifically. But we do fundamentally agree that we won’t see eye to eye on this. I require testable, demonstrable, falsifiable evidence before I will believe something and…



Which I take no issues with. I’ve stated before, I don’t care what people believe. Truth claims are not about what anyone believes, it’s about what can be proven and that’s what science is all about.



Yes, we could prove that Moses got the timeline correct. Problem is you must “interpret” what he said, and assume he meant what he did not say, to prove it.



If you just arbitrarily change definitions to suit your preferred interpretation, then there is nothing to discuss. If we changed the definitions to what the word does not mean, the words could mean anything. After all, it doesn’t explicitly say that God does not mean Zeus or Bigfoot or a teapot.



Ok, so this is what you believe. There’s no evidence to back up your claim that:

1. Moses meant anything other than exactly what he said.
2. That a god/gods had any hand in the process.

Just because something isn’t excluded explicitly, doesn’t make it scientifically valid, as science requires evidence to support your claim. Again, I don’t care what you believe, it’s when you make truth claims that the problem arises. You cannot determine truth without evidence.



It doesn’t matter how many people agree with any hypothesis, yours or otherwise. What you still don’t have is a theory, at least not in the scientific sense.



This is not a boon to religion’s claims of being a universal truth.



No, they don’t. They have different hypothesis’. A scientific theory is as close to a truth as science will attest to.



I don’t. That’s the reason I address your points the way I do. But, just because you’re not a mindless drone does not mean that your arguments will not bear enough similarities with another one to have the same issues.

That is, by far, the biggest effort to beat around my post that I've EVER seen!

At what point is there anything NOT true? Again, you're automatically placing all of it on the "untrue" shel to start with.

At what point do I take anything out of context? I think I adequately addressed the reasoning for why I can see that it MIGHT not be 6 consecutive days, for argument's sake.

It is ovbious that there are MANY that don't need scientific evidence to either make or accept truth claims. The only time it poses to be a problem is with people demanding the scientific evidence. You know, like the part of my post that you skipped around?

Who said I made a scientific theory? I associated what was written with scientific claims? Are you seriously not smarter than this or is this your best attempt to sound like you're saying something intelligent without actually doing so? (BTW, I bet some people will actually be fooled by your dancing)

I love the "close to truth" shit. It give you a little out when needed. LOL

I'll just wait until someone else posts and addresses it then. Thanks for taking up some more time.

[Maddhattter]

I'm sorry but I'm just not going to reply to your original far deviating, overly long winded post.

I won't disagree on the overly winded part. As far as far deviating, I was responding to your statements, so I don't think it was deviating.

That's more time and effort than I care to put into a conversation that isn't held in person. As for evolution being the topic, it too has slightly deviated, so I'd encourage you to "keep up" with the conversation.

It has slightly deviated, I agree. That would still mean that it's mostly about evolution, so I've not had a problem keeping up.

So my point still stands. Since the topic is "evolution" or as one might more aptly put it "adaptation", and since you can submit no physical evidence of how life actually began on this planet, I'm afraid your still in the exact same boat as the creationists. As much as you probably hate that.

So, the topic is evolution, yet I would keep up because the topic has slightly deviated from evolution? At least try to keep your story straight.

Given how evolution is defined, it would not be more aptly called adaptation because we have a word for adaptation and evolution. Those words are adaptation and evolution respectively.

As for the "supernatural", I guess I'll go ahead and tell you that in "science", there is no such thing as the supernatural. Nor magic or anything of the sort.

I agree. That doesn't mean that people don't posit supernatural hypothesis', like an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that can warp reality at it's whim. I agree, the being would be impossible to exist.

Since it can all be explained through the correct means, even a God which created the universe in some way would be considered "natural" and not supernatural. So if it exists, its natural. Something you might keep in mind.

Agreed. If it exists, it's natural. I'm fairly certain I never claimed the supernatural exists.

[exlude]

Two things about your post, Stanley:

1) Evolution is not just adaptation. It is both adaptation and speciation. Speciation being the more argued topic.

2) Again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not need to cover abiogenesis. It's a completely separate topic.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Yeah, because the Christians have cornered morality. Headlines from today alone.

Norweigan fundamentalist Christian to stand trial for killings. Likens himself to Knights Templar in 'war' against Islam.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Christian+extremist+seeks+white+European+jihad/5153623/story.html

Christian church Brother found guilty of serial sex offences with boys in Melbourne, Australia. Protected complicity by the Catholic Church.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/christian-brother-a-sadistic-predator-20110725-1hwlv.html

Catholic church apologises for forcing young mothers to give up children for adoption.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/catholic-church-sorry-for-forced-adoption-20110725-1hvzh.html

Irish parliament addressed on Catholic Church cover-up of child rape and torture in Cork County.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14272988

I'm afraid that all of those are irrelevant. The thing you have to understand is, all those morons don't even understand their own religion. If you actually look at what they were taught, they're doing the exact opposite. So suffice to say, if they were actually following their religion, none of those examples would exist.

That is called Evolution. So, by your own admission, Racrguy has more evidence than Denny, as Denny has demonstrated none.


Considering the topic is evolution, and you agreed that it happens, there is nothing more that needs to be proven.



Reading his posts, he has put forward no “creation” theory.

However, given that every time throughout history, the supernatural option has been shown to be untrue, any naturalistic hypothesis is more credible and rational than a supernatural one. It would be outright irrational to bank on an option that has never been proven to be accurate in anything.

Yes. I did just state that the Raliens creation hypothesis, as I understand it, i.e. aliens created us and the biosphere for us, is more credible than the 6 day creation hypothesis, as it requires no supernatural claims.

I'm sorry but I'm just not going to reply to your original far deviating, overly long winded post. That's more time and effort than I care to put into a conversation that isn't held in person. As for evolution being the topic, it too has slightly deviated, so I'd encourage you to "keep up" with the conversation. So my point still stands. Since the topic is "evolution" or as one might more aptly put it "adaptation", and since you can submit no physical evidence of how life actually began on this planet, I'm afraid your still in the exact same boat as the creationists. As much as you probably hate that.

As for the "supernatural", I guess I'll go ahead and tell you that in "science", there is no such thing as the supernatural. Nor magic or anything of the sort. Since it can all be explained through the correct means, even a God which created the universe in some way would be considered "natural" and not supernatural. So if it exists, its natural. Something you might keep in mind.

[Hobie]

Religion - It's given hope to people in a world torn apart by Religion.