Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[exlude]

I'll be the first to admit, there was a lot outside of my pay grade. Psychology or criminal law? Those are my wheel houses and I'm pretty good with both. However, reading it, what I saw was the researcher said "I took fly x and had them mate with fly y and got fly z." He took 2 already existing creatures of the same species and induced them to mate in a controlled environment. What the leap is, is to say "humans came from nothing, moved up to apes and from there, became as we are" whereas I'm saying "we were created as we are and our environment caused biological changes and modifications to us to help us survive in the environments our ancestors chose." Now, which takes more faith?

Which takes more faith? Creation, because there's no evidence for it what so ever, and never will be.

It's not as simple as "humans came from nothing". You are skipping millions of years of evolution and speciation. Remember, the human species is only about 200,000 years old. Life is 3 to 4 billion years old. That's a lot of evolution.

[Hobie]

Embarrassment? Hardly. The thought of us evolving from other creatures is simply laughable.
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.

Excluding the fossil record of all natural selection forced evolution has happened among humans and other animals during recorded history which is just a single grain of sand throughout the entirety of the hourglass of time.

In only a few generations we were able to mold many things to suit a specific purpose. Major changes will be seen over millions of generations.

It's probably clear that I would like children to be taught what is based on evidence/science/reality over what is based on faith/religious belief/mythology.

What if Muslims became the majority? I don't think Christians would be too happy if another faith's beliefs became gov't forced indoctrination. I think the gov't should be out of the business of religion. It's corrupt enough as is and doesn't need the vileness of politics to manipulate it further.

[racrguy]

Embarrassment? Hardly. The thought of us evolving from other creatures is simply laughable.

So you're too proud to think that you can come from something else. You should lose your ego and realize you're just another animal on the face of this planet.

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.

Yes, he did a good job convincing other sections of biology that what they were already discovering was right. Remember Darwin merely came up with the mechanism (natural selection) of how evolution works. We've since discovered other mechanisms, artificial selection, and sexual selection.

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.

Why do you continually have to be explained what a scientific theory is? A scientific theory has been peer reviewed and proven to be true. Scientific theories are true, whereas a hypothesis is merely an idea that hasn't gone through the peer review process yet.

That "Nazi shit" was thrown out the same time prayer was removed from school in the Engel v Vitale case in 1962. More specifically, you wanting creationism in school is exactly "Nazi shit" because in Mien Kampf Hitler said

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Notice the "Almighty Creator" part

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

I'll just leave this here:

"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.

If it's bullshit science, then you can provide evidence that proves it wrong. Don't worry, I'll wait. (to steal a line from the forever intelligent Forever_frost) And just so you know, the global warming/climate change/whatever they're calling it now stretches across borders, and has been peer reviewed by people from more than just the US. So unless you think there's some big conspiracy from the scientific community regarding this, your statements about people thinking our government is a fraud therefore climate change is a fraud are baseless.

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

Macro and Micro evolution are creationist terms. Science does not differentiate between the two because it's all evolution. Scientific laws do not work the same way that colloquial laws do. Laws, when referring to science describe theories. They make it simpler to understand.

We do have links between the different stages we are said to have gone through. And guess what, you are one of the stages between what we were, and what we are becoming. Keep in mind, evolution happens over thousands and millions of years in complex animals, not tens or hundreds. In the e-coli experiment Maddhattter linked to it was done over 45,000 generations. If the average human lives 70 years for 45,000 generations the timespan is 3,150,000 years. Does that put things into perspective for you?

[Hobie]

FACT: We came from monkeys...

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

Oh shit, bros; I'm dying here!

This is the largest misconception about evolution that creationists have.

No one claims that we came from monkeys. Only that once upon a time today's primates had a common ancestor.

Maybe you know this, but most creationists don't.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sgt Beavis]

Looking around for a good facepalm picture.

[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.

[Denny]

FACT: We came from monkeys...

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

Oh shit, bros; I'm dying here!

[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.

[Hobie]

This about sums it up.

picard.jpg

[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.

[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.