Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[Maddhattter]

Sorry for the terribly long post, I've been moving all weekend and have been without internet on my computer and have no desire to attempt to write out thorough responses from my phone. So, without further introduction....

And who are you again? You say "in the past" like you've been around for more than 107 posts.

So, you’re person number two who has implied that post count means anything whatsoever. Also, I never said “in the past”. I said “past few posts”, which is very different and doesn’t require me to have been around more than 107 posts, as my post was only post #87 in the thread.

So, even though you started your post on the wrong foot, by both being wrong and attempting to make an irrelevant point, I’ll still handle the whole post.

You don't have to tell me how peer review works, I'm well aware of it.

It doesn’t appear so, based on your past few posts. If you did understand how the peer review process worked, you’d know that science doesn’t care what you believe, only what you can prove and the peer review process is put into place so that you can’t claim something to be true only because you believe it.

But its clear to me from your post that you have little real world experience with modern academia.

Not terribly sure how anything is clear when you can’t even remain consistent with your posts, but there will be more on that later.

Before you get all bent out of shape, no I'm not saying that you didn't go to college. Two totally different subjects.

Why would I get bent out of shape? You saying anything about my experiences does nothing to help or hinder your points or impact my present or future.

Before you get all bent out of shape; no, I’m not saying that you claimed that you could impact my present or future.

As for sources... LOL. I don't know what to say. Have you NO exposure to the real world at all? I guess you haven't heard, but there is such a thing as "common knowledge". Let me give you an example.

Wow!! Please, explain to me this concept you call “common knowledge”. Especially since I can trust that you won’t pull some false analogy about how something that can easily be sourced, and logically follows is equal to something that is a whole lot of personal experiences. Surely you’d know that personal experience has absolutely no weight in science.

Its "common knowledge" that you should look both ways before crossing the street.

Yep, a easily sourced claim, that you should provide sources for, as you’ve given no reason to think that you’re any kind of an authority on anything.

Now I'm sure you'll want a source, but I'd submit that if you don't believe me, you should try it for yourself.

Yup, source wanted.

Submission noted.

Submission denied due to lack of any reason to believe that you would know the difference between a valid source and an invalid one. So, without a valid source, there is no reason to believe you. There is also the problem with the appeal to popularity. Just because it may be “common knowledge”, there is no reason to assume that it should be taken seriously. Thanks to religion, it used to be common knowledge when you were sick that you were possessed by a demon. You don’t think that is true, do you? After all, it was “common knowledge” and some people still believe it. Just ask BrianC.

I do have to say that your train of thought seems to be leading to…

Like crossing the street, its common knowledge that some physical evidence for ghosts and there is some evidence for UFO's.

Oh, I guess I got my hopes up. I was expecting a valid analogy, if one was going to be given.

If this were “common knowledge”:

1. Supporting your claim with actual evidence or valid sources should be no problem.
2. There would be no “bias in the face of physical evidence” as scientists would just know that said evidence exists.

Now, there is some physical evidence you could claim support the ghost hypothesis, but never in history has the supernatural been found to be credible when tested by science. But, since you don’t use any specific examples, your claim is too vague to be considered valid.

The main problem with the above is you’re putting the cart before the horse. To claim that ghosts did anything, you must first show that they exist, as “Ghost” is a very clearly defined term.

I’m not touching the UFO issue, as anything that is flying, and someone cannot identify, is a UFO by definition. As I can’t identify every aircraft in the US arsenal, many of them would be UFOs to me. That’s without taking into consideration that a UFO is, by definition, unidentified. So, if it is an extraterrestrial craft, we don’t even know what kind of evidence it would even be capable of leaving behind, rendering the argument for evidence of extraterrestrial visitation invalid.

Now, whether you want to admit that is on you.

Admit what? You’ve failed to demonstrate anything other than an appeal to popularity, propensity for being vague to attempt to push a claim and that you don’t source your claims. Though, I don’t know if the last one counts, as the only reason given for your lack of sources is your appeal to popularity.

Your creationists theory is lost on me though.

I don’t have, nor is there, a scientific creationist theory, as science does not claim that anything happened by magic. So, it would make perfect sense for anyone to be lost on it.

I couldn't care less what some people will do to "want" to believe in a creator.

Irrelevant, as that was not directed at you and it was also clearly stated as what I find funny.

Until I see scientific evidence either way, I'm afraid even your beloved theory of evolution is a crap shoot imo.

As scientific studies have been posted, it wouldn’t take much to find said evidence or, at the very least, find the steps taken in the experiment so that you can test their conclusion yourself. That’s the joy of science; both of our opinions are irrelevant on the issue.

But, since you don’t seem to be inclined to do any work on your own, I’ll just let you see the work that’s already been done, explained in terms a high school graduate should be able to understand.

http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/content/class-sessions

I’ll warn you, though. There just might be science involved.

The theory of evolution would be better called the theory of adaptation.

Actually, considering the definition of the word, it’s named just fine.

evo•lu•tion
noun \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Definition of EVOLUTION

1: one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH(2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advanced : something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5: the extraction of a mathematical root
6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

Species can adapt, to try and ensure the survival over the long haul. Of course even to the extent of making seemingly drastic changes to their physiology.

Not exactly. The adaptation is not something they “try”. It’s a difference that can occur by any number of methods that allows them to reproduce with a higher efficiency than its competition.

But there is zero evidence anywhere in the world to suggest that every living thing on the planet is descendent from some single celled organism or strain of amino acids and proteins that somehow magically "formed" in some kind of primordial soup.

Agreed. Science hasn’t posited anything happening by magic, and evolution makes a valid assumption in regards to life. The theory of evolution assumes that life started. As life exists, there is no reason to assume that it didn’t start.

Evolution doesn’t, however, make any claim at all on how life started. That would be the study of bio-genesis.

Unfortunately, its become every bit as much of a religion to some, as actual religion is to others.

Again, an unsupported assertion on your part. Evolution cannot be a religion as it has no dogma to uphold, worships no god or supernatural entities or powers, nor requires any faith. It’s a scientific theory and science has or does none of the above.

[Denny]

I guess that's what happened to me.

I would always ask questions in Sunday School that couldn't be answered to my satisfaction. My mother pulled me aside when I was 11 or so telling me to knock that shit off because I was embarrassing her. That was the beginning of the end, lol.

How sad. Sorry, bro.

[Hobie]

the bible has been rewritten and altered more then any book in history, but I think science would negate the need for faith, so no I cant see something like that happening.

I guess that's what happened to me.

I would always ask questions in Sunday School that couldn't be answered to my satisfaction. My mother pulled me aside when I was 11 or so telling me to knock that shit off because I was embarrassing her. That was the beginning of the end, lol.

[Denny]

It's not like it was all written at once. If gospels written several hundred years apart make up the book what's wrong with adding a new gospel now?

If you've read it, you'll know. Everything we need is already in there.

[Hobie]

Ummm... no. It already has everything we need until the end.

It's not like it was all written at once. If gospels written several hundred years apart make up the book what's wrong with adding a new gospel now?

[Denny]

the bible has been rewritten and altered more then any book in history, but I think science would negate the need for faith, so no I cant see something like that happening.

Right. It was originally a party manual for hanging with tax collectors, hookers and murderers; not to mention banging multiple wives and family members... good times.

[Denny]

It's no big deal. I'm trying not to get seriously involved in this cluster, but it's laughable to blame all of today's problems on someone else as if Christians have exclusive rights to the moral high-ground.

I've always seen being a Christian as recognizing my inadequacies in all areas, needing Christ in my life since I fall short of God's expectations.

[Cannonball996]

Anyone think that eventually there will be a new gospel added to the bible to help offset advancements in science?

It could use it in order to increase it's current and future relevance strengthening the church's position in the modern world.

the bible has been rewritten and altered more then any book in history, but I think science would negate the need for faith, so no I cant see something like that happening.

[Hobie]

Wow... you were able to grab a few events connected somehow to Christianity. Now what about the other 3459786435987432057 things these heathens are doing?

It's no big deal. I'm trying not to get seriously involved in this cluster, but it's laughable to blame all of today's problems on someone else as if Christians have exclusive rights to the moral high-ground.

[Denny]

Anyone think that eventually there will be a new gospel added to the bible to help offset advancements in science?

It could use it in order to increase it's current and future relevance strengthening the church's position in the modern world.

Ummm... no. It already has everything we need until the end.

[Hobie]

Anyone think that eventually there will be a new gospel added to the bible to help offset advancements in science?

It could use it in order to increase it's current and future relevance strengthening the church's position in the modern world.

[Denny]

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

Wow... you were able to grab a few events connected somehow to Christianity. Now what about the other 3459786435987432057 things these heathens are doing?

[Hobie]

I was created by my Lord and Savior and Amen to that. For the rest of you heathens, well, you came from monkey jizz. Which explains why we have so much Animal Erotica and Depravity in our society today. What's wrong with teaching science in a public school and religion in a christian school? As a matter of fact we should be taught both.

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

[SMEGMA STENCH]

You have an assertion with no evidence, therefore you can explain nothing. And only believers have faith.

You have the exact same amount of evidence that he has lol. That's what you can't get through your head. You have evidence that species can adapt and literally change form over time to better suit their environment. Nothing more. Prove otherwise. Your theory of "creation" has the exact same credibility, scientifically, as his theory of creation. Its just sad that you'll never see that. And thats an awful baby you have in your sig.

[Denny]

Theory = Fact/Law and he will not explain it in detail. In fact, he'll make a half-assed intellipost only on the coat tails of someone else. If you don't like it, you can excuse yourself from the conversation.

By the way, you're uneducated. Now that that is said, nothing you say is valid.

racrguy wins again!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111oneonejuan11!!