Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Offering no alternatives to evolution in public school cirricula is simply another example of the arrogance of man, as illustrated repeatedly in the Bible.

Among the many problems I have with "man" at large, is the arrogance. They'll stupidly teach that evolution is basically law, just as they did to me when I was in school. Then in 100 years when they find out "Oh shit, it wasn't exactly like what we used to think", as science so often does, they'll change it and that will become the new "law". Science is pure, scientists are not. That's what so many people forget.

Now I'd have zero problem if they had said something like "Its thought that..." or "There is evidence to support that...". When they were teaching me evolution. But I mean, be honest. Admit that its not all figured out instead of just teaching it like they do, and did to me.

[Forever_frost]

Which would you like citations on? The fact that no evidence of any mutation that increases genetic evidence has ever been found or that radioactive decay is alterable by chemical and temperature changes?

what would you like me to clarify? And we also hit the HUGE hole in your whole theory. You say believing a 'magical guy' in the sky creating things is foolish yet your theory has zero to say on creation and what started the ball. What is your stance. Let's start from zero and move forward.

[racrguy]

Among the many problems I have with "man" at large, is the arrogance. They'll stupidly teach that evolution is basically law, just as they did to me when I was in school. Then in 100 years when they find out "Oh shit, it wasn't exactly like what we used to think", as science so often does, they'll change it and that will become the new "law". Science is pure, scientists are not. That's what so many people forget.

And that's the difference between science and religion. When religion is wrong it tries to scream at you and tell you that it's not wrong. When science is wrong is apologizes for being wrong and corrects itself. If anything is arrogant, I'd say it's religion, unable to even entertain the notion that it could be wrong.

[racrguy]

Which would you like citations on? The fact that no evidence of any mutation that increases genetic evidence has ever been found or that radioactive decay is alterable by chemical and temperature changes?

what would you like me to clarify? And we also hit the HUGE hole in your whole theory. You say believing a 'magical guy' in the sky creating things is foolish yet your theory has zero to say on creation and what started the ball. What is your stance. Let's start from zero and move forward.

I don't know how life started, and neither do you.

And if you post something that you think is factual, you should be able to cite your source. If you can't, and you don't have the relevant education to back up what you say, then it can be dismissed.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

And that's the difference between science and religion. When religion is wrong it tries to scream at you and tell you that it's not wrong. When science is wrong is apologizes for being wrong and corrects itself. If anything is arrogant, I'd say it's religion, unable to even entertain the notion that it could be wrong.

It is well known in academia that if you have an idea (whether it be right or wrong) that goes against mainstream science, you have a fight ahead of you. There have been professors throw out of colleges for talking about possibilities that "science" as a whole doesn't "agree" with. Science shouldn't be allowed to "agree". Because it must at all costs maintain its objectivity. If not, then its not science at all. Yet these things still happen.

For example, scientists who want to investigate ghosts or UFO's often cannot get their grant money despite physical evidence. These are just a couple of the many taboo subjects.

[racrguy]

It is well known in academia that if you have an idea (whether it be right or wrong) that goes against mainstream science, you have a fight ahead of you. There have been professors throw out of colleges for talking about possibilities that "science" as a whole doesn't "agree" with. Science shouldn't be allowed to "agree". Because it must at all costs maintain its objectivity. If not, then its not science at all. Yet these things still happen.

For example, scientists who want to investigate ghosts or UFO's often cannot get their grant money despite physical evidence. These are just a couple of the many taboo subjects.

There's a thing called burden of proof, and the null hypothesis. Take your ghost or UFO reference. The null hypothesis states that ghosts and ufos do not exist, so you must provide some sort of evidence that justifies the notion that they do. In regards to ideas that disagree with mainstream science, not only do you have to prove how the currently established theory is wrong, but you also have to prove how yours is right. Now, if you don't offer an alternative view on something, all you need to do is prove the established explanation wrong.

[Hobie]

This about sums it up.

picard.jpg

[SMEGMA STENCH]

There's a thing called burden of proof, and the null hypothesis. Take your ghost or UFO reference. The null hypothesis states that ghosts and ufos do not exist, so you must provide some sort of evidence that justifies the notion that they do. In regards to ideas that disagree with mainstream science, not only do you have to prove how the currently established theory is wrong, but you also have to prove how yours is right. Now, if you don't offer an alternative view on something, all you need to do is prove the established explanation wrong.

I'm talking about the bias in the face of physical evidence. There is some physical evidence of ghosts. There is some physical evidence of UFOs. Just like those teachers thrown out of colleges for what they wanted to teach, you get those who shun the subject or don't want to accept that its a subject at all even after the evidence is presented. They acknowledge all kinds of things that they admit they barely understand, but not when it comes to certain subjects. And its mainly because the people who have been associated with them in the past.

[Denny]

FACT: We came from monkeys...

ROTFLMMFGDAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh shit, bros; I'm dying here!

[Vertnut]

FACT: We came from monkeys...

ROTFLMMFGDAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh shit, bros; I'm dying here!

It's funny what people will believe in to avoid the thought of having a creator.

[Sgt Beavis]

Looking around for a good facepalm picture.

[Maddhattter]

I'm talking about the bias in the face of physical evidence. There is some physical evidence of ghosts. There is some physical evidence of UFOs. Just like those teachers thrown out of colleges for what they wanted to teach, you get those who shun the subject or don't want to accept that its a subject at all even after the evidence is presented

Stanley, unfortunately, most of your past few posts have been unsupported assertions which are no better than urban legends. Does this mean that your assertions are false? No. There is just no reason to believe you. You’ve given no sources, nor examples of the evidence that you claim exists.

They acknowledge all kinds of things that they admit they barely understand, but not when it comes to certain subjects. And its mainly because the people who have been associated with them in the past.

While this is an unsupported assertion, I fail to see the point of these two statements even if they were true. Science has the peer review process. Nothing in science gets to be a theory without going through the peer review process. This gives everybody the chance to show how the science is wrong. So, if papers have gone through the peer review process and not been shown to be wrong, there is no reason not to believe something some scientists barely understand, as other scientists, who do understand, have failed to show the author of the paper’s science is wrong.

If science would do as you claim it should, science could never progress to anything, because there would always be people denying what they don’t understand and science would always be forced to pretend that there is an equal competing theory. It’s regardless of who is associated with it in the past. It’s just that, much like the 6 day creationist's and/or irreducible complexity arguments, they’ve been demonstrated to be untrue so many times, there is no reason to even consider it an option until any new evidence is presented.

FACT: We came from monkeys...

ROTFLMMFGDAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh shit, bros; I'm dying here!

You should be and it should be from embarrassment. As it’s already be discussed that evolution does not posit that “We came from monkeys”. Only those who are ignorant of Evolution would claim that.

We didn’t come from monkeys as they have been evolving right beside us to fit their particular niche. We also didn’t come from apes as we still are apes. I linked a paper with my last post. You can look at it from the previous post

It's funny what people will believe in to avoid the thought of having a creator.

It’s more funny to me what people will refuse to believe so that they feel they can believe in a creator.

As it’s been pointed out, more than once, evolution and believing in a creator are not mutually exclusive. Not to mention the fact that, even if you could prove that evolution is false, the 6 day creation and/or the irreducible complexity model would not be any more supported by science, and would still not be considered a valid alternative by science.

[Denny]

Stanley, unfortunately, most of your past few posts have been unsupported assertions which are no better than urban legends. Does this mean that your assertions are false? No. There is just no reason to believe you. You’ve given no sources, nor examples of the evidence that you claim exists.



While this is an unsupported assertion, I fail to see the point of these two statements even if they were true. Science has the peer review process. Nothing in science gets to be a theory without going through the peer review process. This gives everybody the chance to show how the science is wrong. So, if papers have gone through the peer review process and not been shown to be wrong, there is no reason not to believe something some scientists barely understand, as other scientists, who do understand, have failed to show the author of the paper’s science is wrong.

If science would do as you claim it should, science could never progress to anything, because there would always be people denying what they don’t understand and science would always be forced to pretend that there is an equal competing theory. It’s regardless of who is associated with it in the past. It’s just that, much like the 6 day creationist's and/or irreducible complexity arguments, they’ve been demonstrated to be untrue so many times, there is no reason to even consider it an option until any new evidence is presented.



You should be and it should be from embarrassment. As it’s already be discussed that evolution does not posit that “We came from monkeys”. Only those who are ignorant of Evolution would claim that.

We didn’t come from monkeys as they have been evolving right beside us to fit their particular niche. We also didn’t come from apes as we still are apes. I linked a paper with my last post. You can look at it from the previous post



It’s more funny to me what people will refuse to believe so that they feel they can believe in a creator.

As it’s been pointed out, more than once, evolution and believing in a creator are not mutually exclusive. Not to mention the fact that, even if you could prove that evolution is false, the 6 day creation and/or the irreducible complexity model would not be any more supported by science, and would still not be considered a valid alternative by science.

Embarrassment? Hardly. The thought of us evolving from other creatures is simply laughable. You can take science and manipulate a thought to lean that direction. That simple-minded "scientist," Darwin did so and he had a lot of people believing his bad trip. Congrats.

I'm cool with people beliving that shit based on faith (either way), but don't try to shove theories down anyone's throat as fact and try to mandate that it is the only curriculum taught in public schools. You can take that Nazi shit and shove it straight up your ass. Straight up there.

[Vertnut]

There's a thing called burden of proof, and the null hypothesis. Take your ghost or UFO reference. The null hypothesis states that ghosts and ufos do not exist, so you must provide some sort of evidence that justifies the notion that they do. In regards to ideas that disagree with mainstream science, not only do you have to prove how the currently established theory is wrong, but you also have to prove how yours is right. Now, if you don't offer an alternative view on something, all you need to do is prove the established explanation wrong.

"Global warming" is a great example of bullshit science. Nothing else in our history has had more money wasted on it than this rediculous "study"...other than the "theory of evolution". We still pay nerds big money to dig up dinosaur bones, and all it proves is that there were dinosaurs. Just because our government throws billions of dollars at a study, doesn't mean their conclusions are right.

A lot of the same guys on this board that think our government is a fraud, are the same ones that believe their silly-assed studies.

[Forever_frost]

If there was verifiable and reproducible proof of macro evolution, we'd have a law of evolution, not a theory. Kind of like the law of gravity. As science cannot explain how we got here or our origins, nor provide links between the different stages we are said to have gone through, to believe that we evolved from single celled organisms is an act of faith. Plain and simple