Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
What do we want?
CREATION!
When do we want it?
NOW!
Daddy, I want an Oompa-Loompa! Now!
Or, Progressives See Christiany Version of Themselves, React with Rage
Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
What do we want?
CREATION!
When do we want it?
NOW!
Daddy, I want an Oompa-Loompa! Now!
Or, Progressives See Christiany Version of Themselves, React with Rage
This should get nishi’s attention.
We’re gonna have a dev-va-lu-tion, well-ell ya know!
Shunning the non-believers in 5,4,3…
…and I want a feast! I want a bean feast! With cream buns and donuts and fruit cake with no nuts. Give it to me now…
Don’t care how, I want it now.
I love that movie. I could sing it from beginning to end.
– If, in this ground swell of creationist euphoria, someone should happen to rediscover that damn puple Dinosaur, and I hear even the first line of “Iiiiiiiii luuuuuvvvv uuuuuuuuu….,uuuuuuu llluuuuvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv mmmmmmmmmmmeeeeee”, I’m holding you personally responsible Collins.
You know, BBH, that’s downright mean.
Do purple dinosaurs eventually decompose into oil? BP – Barney Petroleum!!!
– You know, as long as I’ve taken part in debates over this issue, which as a scientist who knows that the so called “facts” are so flimsy as to be basically non-existent, I have never understood why both sides don’t simply call a truce and let both “theory’s”, and whether either side likes it or not, they are just exactly that, two theory’s, both at bedrock, based almost entirely on faith.
– Why not just bury the axe, and let them both be taught, clearly stating up front, that faith is the key to either one.
– Of course the answer is, that both are also steeped to the rafters in egos and absolutism, both as phony as the day is long. Faith is the bones in both skeletons, and the sooner both sides simply admit that, the sooner we can all get some sleep.
– Its doubly difficult for myself as a practicing scientist, since I know very few true scientists would ever boldly make the claims that the adulating synchophants claim for our craft. And since most scientists are conservative by nature, if not in their politics ertainly in their demeener, they’re not about to run around debunking things whenever some evolutioist wackjob makes some totally unfounded claims, any more than an evangelist is quick to speak up when someone misquotes an argument winning passage from the good book. People of good faith just seem to lose all perspective whenever they perceive that their faith is being questioned in some way.
– Some time I hope educators see the wisdom of putting the alternatives out there in a “we report, you decide” way, and let it go at that. Personally I’m sick of all this nonsense, and the excuses both sides use to keep the attacks on each other going.
Or, Progressives See Christiany Version of Themselves, React with Rage
Dan, you are a very bad man. How dare you invent the mirror.
Misery loves company, J. Peden ;-P
-….and let both theory’s exist side by side,…
– Been a long day.
okfine
go ahead, put that crapology in your kid’s classes.
its what you want, who cares if the kiddos have a substandard education and are irredeemably confused about the difference between abiogenisis and ToE like the lot of you.
So what if your kids can’t get into Daphne Kollers program at Standford or Eric Landers at MIT.
Big deal.
;)
MY kids, (when i have them), won’t be going to school in Jesusland.
Stanford
dear nishi,
I am a scientist and not a Supernaturalist. But Intelligent Design looks a lot better than whatever produced you. So I guess you have made your point.
Nishi, sounds like another Michael Moore movie in the making. Please do your kids a favor and don’t have them.
The only thing I’ve ever been concerned about is the teaching of Evolution as fact. nishi seems to be of the school that says, basically, because she thinks it works and it’s the best explaination we have, then that’s what you teach as stone cold fact.
I think that this is the right way to go, not for the purpose of promoting the desires of “Jesusland” but for fostering in students the very important idea of critical thinking. You know, nishi, the idea that a theory like evolution that has rather canyon sized gaps should be taught and looked at with a sober understanding of its deficiencies. Seems quite reasonable to me. Not everything is a xtian plot to control your mind and jail the scientists. Lighten up.
What?!
Damn, man. Now you tell me.
IDT is just an attempt to introduce misinformation into the classroom.
there is plenty of controversy about ToE, but none of it involves abiogenisis.
it is just fantastically stupid to convolve the two domains.
how can that benefit kids? it will make them just as ignorant as the rest of you.
oh, yeah…..for the non linkers.
If only nishi were half as concerned about global warming (being taught to absolutely every PS student at fact RIGHT NOW across the entire country/world) as she were about this.
WEDGE!
Seeing nishi’s name on posts aids reading threads so much faster since one need not read nishi-posts to make sense of the thread; in fact, avoiding nishi-posts makes the effort to follow a thread’s discussion or debate far easier.
Anyway, materialists cling to the increasingly-untenable theory of evolution because it gives them an intellectually satisfying rationale for atheism or, at the very least, agnosticism. Engaging the bromidic intellection of evolution fully, the faithful materialist can impose quasifacts as a factual basis to silence debate, thereby endowing themselves with a seemingly unassailable and smug self-righteousness.
Just as in the rest of the left’s arsenal, fascist thought control of the children (get ’em while they’re young) is necessary for survival of the left’s philosophies. When it’s untenable, simply outlaw discussion.
– They can’t lighten up BJ, because its not about critical thinking, its about raw hatred of religion. nishi already knows shes weak to indoctrination for obvious reasons, and shes afraid she’ll pass it to her kids. (if she is ever forced to have any).
carin, im active on planet gore, along with a lot of my friends.
AGW is just a lot harder to debunk.
Convolving ToE with abiogenisis is just such an obviously dopey premise it makes it very low hanging fruit.
Im incredulous that the Proteins still don’t get it.
It does make you look stupid, and reinforces the xians==teh Stupid meme.
AGW is just a lot harder to debunk.
BS. The fact that we are not warming should make it a bit easier, no?
Im incredulous that the Proteins still don’t get it.
I am incredulous that the nishit still continues to argue with the voices in her head, and the caricatures of ideas dancing around in that empty melon.
“the increasingly-untenable theory of evolution ”
are you insane?
that is just crazy talk, there is absolutely no support for that.
All or nearly all national and international science academies and professional societies have issued statements supporting evolution and opposing intelligent design.
Even Allahpundit linked this the otherday.
Look, go ahead and legislate second rate educations for the poor kiddos in Jesusland schools.
My kids won’t be going there, and your kids won’t be going to MIT or Stanford.
I think thats fair.
;)
– You just have to love it when come self appointed neophyte is abdurently convinced they have their mental finger on the pulse of truth, to such an absolute and unassailable extent, that they can look me in the eye and tell me as a scientist I don’t understand.
– That is a level of delusional narcissism you don’t often see.
nishi, a few years ago a PA school district tried to get students and their parents to sign a document that proclaimed ToE as fact. They backed away after parents put up a storm of protest.
Again, not everything is a xtian plot. I was always on the fence about ID but a more reasoned and balanced presentation of ToE is preferable to stating it as “settled science,” which is the same thing being done in schools now with respect to AGW.
Rather than calling us “stupid” or “theocons” try to see a more reasoned point of view.
(he said with no expectation of reason taking hold.)
“are you insane?”
– When you act and speak as if you life depends on some issue that is a simple matter of opinion in such a desperate and hysterical way, you might want to sit down, take a breath, and look in the mirror. The very point of this post, which also seems to have flown over your head.
Oh, and nishi? We’re not arguing for or about ID anymore. Try to keep up. We’re arguing for a more balanced and critical thinking approach to teaching Evolution to school children. Stop beating the strawman.
After Expelled, will anyone take Ben Stein seriously again? Anyone? Anyone?
lol.
look morons, forced teaching of IDT IS a Discovery Institute plot.
I have linked this at least hundred times.
It says in the damned article
The Discovery Institute has provided a template for legislators to file “academic freedom†bills, and they have been popping up with increasing frequency in statehouses across the country.
its social engineering and you morons are all for it.
Science good. Scientists should not be burdened by morals or ethics, because they know better than anyone that does not believe the same way nishit does. The absolute unadulterated and unwarranted arrogance of the nishit never fails to be breath-taking.
WEDGE STRATEGY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!eleventy
You know what, nishi?
Fuck off.
Take your holier than scientific thou to the rest of the narrow minded eugenics loving murderous bastards that you hang out with and get each other off by destroying some zygotes. Serious discussions require serious minds. Yours is a Tom and Jerry cartoon. I’m done with any thread in which you are a participator.
It takes a special kind of ego to turn every criticism of ToE into some hidden plot to advance ID. I’d call it paranoia, but I suspect those doing it know exactly what they are doing.
“We’re arguing for a more balanced and critical thinking approach to teaching Evolution to school children.”
bullshit.
you are not teaching controversies in evolution, you want to talk about abiogenisis WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ToE.
what are you gonna teach? Out of Africa? Horizontal gene transfer? Neanderthal genome?
IDT has nothing to do with evolution.
sheesh.
So nishit is a mind reader of all who comment about evolution. She knows your motives better than you. It is not possible to talk about any perceived flaws in the model for evolution. It is obvious you are trying to backdoor IDT for everyone, you fucking godbotherers.
Other than nishit, did anyone else bring up IDT?
– The thing that is always puzzling to me is why some have such a desperate aversion to learning. Its as if the mere laying of their eyes on an opposing point of view has them convinced down to the core of their souls that such an act of “blasphemy” will instantly turn them into a pillar of salt. Which in itself, is an interesting dichotomy. Of the two camps, its by far the evolutionists that appear to be the extreme zealots, clutching their elemental charts and genome maps defiantly, like a mother polar bear defending her cubs.
– Remarkable.
edu guy, give me a criticism of ToE.
please.
or alternatively read the comments on this thread where me and my cohort debunked at least a dozen of those “criticisms”, often repeatedly.
IDT has nothing to do with evolution.
sheesh.
And nobody here is linking them. You are. That army of strawmen has to be getting tired of getting torched. Arsonist.
I don’t want to talk about abiogenesis. I don’t give a rat’s ass about ID. I just want to throttle you until the screeching stops. Is that so wrong?
This isn’t a controversy between IDT and TOE for The Nishi. Which of these theories is more or less credible has nothing to do with why The Nishi feels so strongly about the subject.
Consistent with the principles of the Nishi Effect, issues (and there are only nine of them) are secondary to The Nishi Herself. For example, Obama is not significant as a presidential candidate, he is important as The Nishi’s presidential candidate.
It’s because she fancies herself a scientist, and dammit, evolution is what scientists gotta do, right? So, to The Nishi, any challenge raised to TOE is a personal insult.
It’s all about The Nishi.
– nishi, its clear from your insistance on believing in a theory, while at the same time you also refuse to admit that it is faith based, you lack formal scientific training. It would be a foolish waste of anyones time to debate you.
nishi
One of the tenets behind the ToE is that changes in species occur due to genetic mutation of an individual, that some of these mutations are beneficial to the species and are thus propagated to the next generation, and some are not-beneficial and lead to the demise of the individual. Another, related tenet is that all life evolved from a common ancestor, and that the above mechanism is how we account for the various species. One potential problem with this is that the law of averages would inform us that at the level of the individual there should be roughly the same number of failures as there are successes, so the question is, where in the fossil record do we find the required massive numbers of different mutations that did not work out?
nishi
Addendum to last: I recognize that not all mutation can show at the fossil record, but it seems likely that a great number should.
Big Bang H
@43 you seem to be alluding to questions less about ToE than questions of epistemology and perhaps ontology. These sorts of questions, it seems to me, may underlay the sciences but aren’t congruent with the proper objects of study in, say, biology, which would be living things. Do you agree?
here u go, guys, these are the current controversies being discussed in ToE
it would be superfine if you can educate highschools enough in molecular biology, O chem, math and genetics to be able discuss these.
you go for it.
In the real world of science, common descent of animals is completely noncontroversial;
Well there you go. If a scientist takes a shit in a box and labels it a cake, you will eat it!
– #46 – As a scientist, I would answer that question by asserting that sciences such as biology have still to this day, not been proven in any non-epistemological way. That our logic tells us they should be, and most probably will be, eventually, is beside the point. Science may discuss probabilities, and use it as a useful mathematical tool, but science itself does not tend to base things on “logical extensions” when putting a “decided” stamp on any issue. At present the fossil record is so incomplete, it basically supports nothing.
– So the argument, for anyone that wished to go that way, would be just as valid ontologically as any other.
– The statement in laymen terms might go: “Until we find evidence of even one instance of a connection between a pair of related species, we could just as well be baying at the moon.”
– The majority of science knows this. Only the true believers insist on infallibility.
it was clear that there simply is no controversy.
We have unanimity of opinion therefore declare the debate settled. Sounds a lot like the AGW folks, nishit.
– Oh and nishi. When you have to write that much hand waving temporizing “jargon” to make a simple declaration, you know you’ve already lost the debate.
– That is bourne from the deep frustration we all feel in the sciences. Its there damn it. It has to be there. Everything I know tells me its there. All my life’s work, everything I’ve ever learned demands it be there.
– Unfortunately the simple truth is so far it ain’t there.
I don’t want to talk about abiogenesis. I don’t give a rat’s ass about ID. I just want to throttle you until the screeching stops. Is that so wrong?
Well, she’s moved on to cut-n-paste mode, so ALL CAPS certainly isn’t far behind.
You know what, nishi, I’d be superfine if they could teach all that stuff regarding ToE in high school. Do I think they can? No. But, apparently the response from your cohorts is to simply teach it as settled science, since their poor little brains can handle the subtleties, right? I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but were my children to find themselves in a PS science class, I would like them to learn both sides of the issue. The other side NOT being ID, or creationism, but that there are missing links and unexplained parts involved in ToE. Or, to at least be informed that they exist, even if their two-digit brains can’t handle it.
WEDGE.
MY kids, (when i have them), won’t be going to school in Jesusland.
Oh, dear lord perish the thought. Didn’t you listen to Alice Walker at all?
Bondage. Children are nothing but bondage.
BBH,
Most of 49 is, I’m afraid, just gobbledy-gook to me. Please forgive me for being so thick. I’d like to focus on this particle of your statement in 43, “…it is faith based…”. In 46, I was wondering whether this phrase wasn’t less about genome maps or simian taxonomy, than about how we know what we think we know? And (ontologically) what there is to know about? I frankly don’t understand why you bring up infallibility in 49, when I’m not sure that anyone in the conversation is making any such claim. But I’m not a scientist (though I do love to read the works of such lofty human beings).
– Sdferr – I was referring to the desperate need of the evolutioist zealots to find my beloved science as infallible to support specious claims, where we ourselves would never do such a thing.
– Its almost like the adepts have taken over the temple, and now DEMAND we agree to infallibility. Its just stupid nonsense, and a lot of us hate it. You might look at it as being akin to Bin Laden hijacking the Muslim religion for his own purposes. Pisses a lot of us off, and at times we’ve been known to mess with Evo’s heads, because of that anger.
– As to the first part I wrote, in simple terms “origins” remains an open book, so if you want to think of it in ontological terms, you’d be just as valid in your approach.
– At present, as far as the scientific record, either mode of thought is epistemologically valid.
BJ, nishi is ebullient because the nation seems to be precariously determined to undermine liberty with the election of a cryptoMarxist to the White House while giving him majorities in both Houses of Congress. That means the era of being able to debate leftist assumtions about anything is coming to a regulated end, zygoticide will be not only fashionable but eugenically mandated, and subsidies for inner-city, black neighborhood abortion clinics, and inner-city Hispanic neighborhood abortion clinics, is just around the November corner. “Happy days are here again!” (heard above the happy putter of the uterine evacuator’s compressor).
BJ, do as as I do and skip over any comments by nishi. It makes following a thread easier unless, of course, others are engaging nishi for the shoot-the-fish-in-the-barrel sport of fit all. In that case the thread has already derailed into a discussion of the absurd; but think of the slapshots possibilities when that has happened!
BBH
There is a long and quite evident sour history on PW with Nishi. That is an emotional thing I try hard (well, a little) not to get too wrapped up in. Let’s just say, not my deal. I am however, very interested in the meaning of the “faith based” sorts of things that underlie our attempts to know about the world and the things in it (and things not in it, such as unicorns). Truth and untruth, you might say. Science, I take as one way, one path, of human reason at work in the world. Some human activities have claimed to ‘be’ science, or scientific, when they turned out not to be. I give you Phrenology as an example. There are others. On the other hand, sincere (how can there be any sin in sincere?) efforts to understand the world can result in mistakes, long and arduous mistakes like Ptolemaic cosmology, pretty good geometry after all, but informed by pretty shitty antecedent premises. (I studied Ptolemy and it was worth it, despite the ‘known’ fact that his conclusion was wrong.) The question I want to get at is how we humans avoid going down the blind ally? Are the Discovery Institute folks after the same thing I am? For now, I doubt it.
“Or, Progressives See Christiany Version of Themselves, React with Rage”
I didn’t quite see the rage in that article, but this commom tactic of casting aspersions at the “other side” (if one’s simple enough to view things in such a manner) by pointing out how angry they are has become pretty tiresome.
The proof that this endless stream of anti-science bio-nonsense (creationism, ID, negatives & positives) is deleterious to our collective education is that the theory of evolution is now a point of debate publicly. That’s absurd. If it were properly taught, people would see it like gravity: surely it exists, but all of the details aren’t worked out.
So sadly, these people are winning.
steve and nishit have spoken, therefore all must submit.
maybe they should have put it in a memo.
You must never debate a theory !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look, my chief frustration is that this is a manufactured controversy.
There are real controversies in ToE, but none of them are appropriate for discussion in highschool classes.
IMHO, the Discovery Institute should give research fundage to Behe to investigate his machine complexity of protosomes theory instead of funding social engineering of school boards.
IJS
Geezer, i have two words for you.
majority rule.
it looks like a pretty uniform rejection of rightside politics, government, policy and culture to me.
have a nice next eight years.
Caroline Kennedy (may she live forever) for SCOTUS
That’s absurd. If it were properly taught, people would see it like gravity: surely it exists, but all of the details aren’t worked out.
Say, if it were taught like global warming?
Honestly, it’s so much fun to push this button. The shrieking and hair pulling. But, I think the most telling phrase in Steve’s comment is the use of the phrase “collective education.”
Geezer, i have two words for you.
majority rule.
Except where the nishit advocates for the minority opinion to be jammed down everyone else’s throats. Consistency, it is not her middle name.
dur, JD, ima jeffersonain and a neoplatonist.
i support the electoral college.
but cultural evolution is unstoppable, inexorable, and cyclic.
gotta prepare for the blowback, dude.
“So sadly, these people are winning.
– I disagree steve. People lose, all people, when any sort of knowledge is stamped “unacceptable” out of hand. The Left may wish to set itself up as some sort of intellectual arbiter of what is, and isn’t, acceptable. Based on what. Self aggrandizement, and nothing else.
– I would submit that any obstacle to learning is far more injurious than what you are enumerating.
– “Directed” learning is the Fascists tool, dressed up in reasonable terms, but none the less propaganda for all of that. Were that not the case, your side would not be afraid of teaching all points of view. You fail on the very face of your argument.
– Its the same argument as the difference between and open and closed society, and why Socialism will always be doomed to fail.
steve
I have to disagree, pointing out the holes in “accepted” theory to the very people who are our future scientists is not only not a bad for our collective education, it is a way to give young minds an idea of where our thinking should be focused.
When it comes to science and science education, I think we all ought to “step away from the politics”. It really isn’t about our emotions and emotional attachments. Science is about learning. Politics is not about learning.
“steve and nishit have spoken, therefore all must submit.”
no submission neccessary – I’m asking YOU for a model that accounts for the data as well. That’s enidentiary.
Well?
“I would like them to learn both sides of the issue. The other side NOT being ID, or creationism, but that there are missing links and unexplained parts involved in ToE. Or, to at least be informed that they exist”
Why? Are physics teachers required to caveat anything they say about we don’t know yet about quantum mechanics?
Nishi
Where do you look to find your Neo-Platonism?
“Directed†learning is the Fascists tool, dressed up in reasonable terms,
which is EXACTLY what the discovery institute is promoting.
The Wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to “defeat [scientific] materialism” represented by evolution, “reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions” and to “affirm the reality of God.” Its goal is to “renew” American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.
Why? Are physics teachers required to caveat anything they say about we don’t know yet about quantum mechanics?
Would you seriously advocate for not telling them about the problems with unification in physics?
To many inane things to respond to, soI’ll be frank: y’all don’t understand the theory of evolution. You just don’t. It’s not a political debate, it’s a scientific one, and just about every opponent I’ve ever talked to has no idea what they’re talking about – forgetting of course that they have no alternative model that makes scientific sense.
Science is hard – it’s not idiotic politics and coming up with cutesy little phrases like ‘O!’ and ‘teh’ (though I do find those funny). I suggest y’all break open the books, understand what you’re talking, about and THEN get involved in the debate.This chronology usually works best.
fascists.
“Why? Are physics teachers required to caveat anything they say about we don’t know yet about quantum mechanics?”
– No we are not nishi. But then its been a long time since anyone demanded that I teach the direction of spin on the electron to conform to their political beliefs.
– Unfortunately, because of Evo zealots, the same thing cannot be said about the living sciences.
If only stupidity could be burned as fuel, the stupidityfields between Nishi’s ears would put OPEC out of business in the blink of an eye, and could power a polygalactic civilization for the next trillion years.
how about cosmology? do we have to caveat origins of the universe with a god discussion?
Nishi – that is just stupid. Ignorance of omission.
“Would you seriously advocate for not telling them about the problems with unification in physics?”
Would you be in favor of teaching that failing a TOE, QM and relativity are wrong and the only possible explanation is God did it?
No serious scientist doens’t think things like the CE or OL issues that aren’t known shouldn’t be taught. No ones saying that all of bio is accounted for.
that I teach the direction of spin on the electron to conform to their political beliefs.
exactly. anti-evolution luddism is a political belief.
not a scientific one
no carin, it is exactly the same thing.
“…exactly. anti-evolution luddism is a political belief.”
– And if, and until, evolution becomes a proven science, it to is a political belief.QED
And I know plenty of uber-conservative people who realize that evolution is real. It really has nothing to do with politics (beyond the alliance building that has given us this ‘debate’)
im fine with the “strengths and weaknesses” language i guess….but i demand that highschool textbooks on physics and cosmology also contain the exact same language.
kk?
Big Bang is a perfect e.g. of the sort of scientific ignorance I’m talking about.
Just look at your use of the phrase “proven science”. There’s no such thing. What is ‘proven’ by your standards?
– and thus, neither side has a monopoly on the “truth”, as hysterically as they may wish they did.
“i’m fine with the “strengths and weaknesses†language i guess….but i demand that highschool textbooks on physics and cosmology also contain the exact same language.”
If all science was taught this way, I wouldn’t care either.
Man this is boring. Unless someone starts using all caps, I’m out.
“- and thus, neither side has a monopoly on the “truthâ€Â, as hysterically as they may wish they did.”
Who said anything about monopolies?
Where’s the model that better accounts for the data? That’s what matters. Everything else is pissin’ in the wind.
– And if, and until, evolution becomes a proven science, it to is a political belief.QED
sure BBH, then quantum field theory and cosmology theory and theory of relativity are all political beliefs.
zomg!
quod erat demonstrandum
DON’T BAIL, CARIN!!!!!1!!!!
Properly taught any subject matter ought to raise questions in the minds of curious students? That’s what good teaching is, isn’t it? Helping learners learn to formulate good questions? And then seek to answer them for themselves? If then, there are admitted outstanding questions in Biology, why wouldn’t we think that the students of Biology would stumble upon those questions and try to find answers to them? The ’empty vessel’ theory of paidagogy, where the authority teacher pours ‘knowledge’ into the student has been found to be pretty much crap, hasn’t it? The indispensable driver of any science is questioning curiosity, so it seems to me that no one needs to insert questions into curricula so they won’t be missed.
“What is ‘proven’ by your standards?
– That people, such as yourself steve, are incapable of rational discourse on certain “politically charged” subjects without resort to ad hominems and personal attacks.
– But if you’d like to expand the area of debate to include questions of epistomological correctness, be my guest.
– If you’re going to look foolish in debating an area totally outside your expertise you might as well go all the way.
To – Everyone
Re – Wedge Strategy
ALL HAIL THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE!!!
Also, remember to discuss the holes in ToE with highschoolers, so as to lock up their insufficent little brains.
Best,
B. Stein
Who said no one could question things Sdferr? If some kid finds a better explanation of the data – great! The fact is, though, that evo wonderfully accounts for diverse types of data. The convergent evidence is astonishing.
So people can question all they like – but at the end of the day it’s the EVIDENCE that has to stand up. And it does.
“- That people, such as yourself steve, are incapable of rational discourse on certain “politically charged†subjects without resort to ad hominems and personal attacks.”
I’m not saying I’m right becasue you’re ignorant – I’m right becasue of the evidence. That you’re ignorant is besides the point, I agree. BEsides – I’d love to debate the issue – tell me what accounts for any of the data as well. Talk evidence and interpretation – the rest is BS.
“- But if you’d like to expand the area of debate to include questions of epistomological correctness, be my guest.
– If you’re going to look foolish in debating an area totally outside your expertise you might as well go all the way.”
I’m actually a biological scientist so I’d love to debate you. But this can’t happen because you have nothing to say.
Again – where’s the better interpretation of the evidence?
Steve
I think you mistake my intent. Evidence is the sine qua non. On the other hand (you knew I had another hand, right?), questions arise betimes from conflict (or apparent conflict) in the evidence, aha! the question unfolds. What gives here with this stuff, this evidence, this conflict? Answers are sought, more evidence comes to light, new questions are raised. Some questions are dispensed with rather quickly, as misunderstandings, misinterpretations, attributed to illusory phenomena, etc. Other questions take hold with a vengence, demand answers while refusing to give up their secrets. These become the objects of serious life long scientific research, dispute, what have you.
Once again with the asinine evolution debate. Nishi already admitted that AGW junkscience is a bigger threat, but she obsesses over YECs — who have damned near no chance of actually winning the political debate.
Go apply your efforts where it might make a difference, ‘mkay?
#65
It has been proven dozens of times now that The Nishi is not in fact a neo-Platonist. In fact, she thinks Plato is Aristotle, or that since Aristotle was Plato’s student, that their philosophies are the same.
Plato believed in essential reality, The Nishi does not.
Aristotle was a scientist, The Nishi isn’t.
look..it is such a time waster.
the DI is manufacturing controversy where none exists.
ToE is the best model the scientific community has right now to explain origin and diversity of species. ToR is the best model we have to explain to explain relativity. ToQG is that best theory we have to expalin quantum gravity.
In our lifetimes ToR and ToQG will be reconciled to produce the Unification Theorem.
At CERN we are right now unpicking the fabric of spacetime.
and you guyz are just wasting spacetime.
lolz!
– Some of the models I use in my science are “beautiful” steve. I think of them as “beautiful” myself, and the way they allow me to predict and arrange, and refine, and generate things physical is also a type of “beauty”.
– Now some people would luok at that and say, “Damn we’re so lucky life is arranged that way”. Others see it as by divine design, because they prefer a universe with more than casual meaning.
– Why is it so life and death to you and others that one side or the other be “right”.
– In your own words, at the end of the day I can enjoy that “beauty” regardless of whos “right”.
look..it is such a time waster.
the DI is manufacturing controversy where none exists.
Snicker. Irony alert.
sorry serr8D.
i have resolved not to talk about my personal philosophies anymore.
i have decided it is actually proselytization, which is a Sufi sin.
man cannot acquire what he cannot use.
;)
and no, ToE is not philosophy, nor is ToR, ToQG, or any other scientific theories i currently accept.
Definition of Irony: Nishi is as close-minded and fanatical as it claims the people it hates are. Or is that more the definition of projection?
Fortunately, the theory of evolution isn’t dependant on nishi for validity.
my Sufism and neoplatonism are philosophies, not scientific theories.
get the difference?
It is after all, hilarious and horrible that Dan can write up the post, then stand back to watch the carnage he knows is coming unfold just as he predicts (…reacts with rage…).
Let’s step outside and fire up a spliff.
“These become the objects of serious life long scientific research, dispute, what have you.”
I absolutely agree. My problem is that we should be trying to answer questions with the best evidence available. What if I wanted to teach kids that free energy existed? Didacticaly, that might be a fine jumping off point to teach them about thermodynamics, but if I left them with some nutcase’s invention and said “judge for yourself”, that would be a travesty of education. That said, physics is far from completely understood. Should a high school science teacher use that fact to leave them with a “strength and weakness” argument for free energy> Of course not.
So it’s not the questioning. It’s the answering that’s the problem, and every unanswered question does not change entire models. Teaching kids THAT in and of itself is bad science education.
<i<“Let’s step outside and fire up a spliff.
– Ok….I’ll supply the woodie…..
Look, Nishi, I know a little of the conventional neoplatonism, having read in the Enneads way back when. So long ago though, that I’m not sure the book is still in my library, but I will look. I was just wondering what you identify as ‘neoplatonism’ and where you go to look for it (that ‘look’ = eide [snigger, snigger]) It is not my intention to go after you or any such thing.
i hate you dan collins.
you got me tryin to a taomadh na mara le cliabh (bailing the sea of stupidity with a creel) again.
Sdferr – I suppose we should just be grateful Dan didn’t add “NOW DANCE, MONKEYS” to the very bottom of the post.
BBH – I study the brain, and I’m awed by the beauty of it every day. But that awe explains nothing.
Equally, saying there’s a creator is not a thoery. It makes no predictions. It’s is not science and it’s not explanatory of anything.
it has nothing to do with you serr8D.
i have decided it is a personal sin, and impedess my progress towards faana.
“….but if I left them with some nutcase’s invention and said “judge for yourselfâ€Â, that would be a travesty of education.”
– It certainly would be steve, if they were so poorly trained they could not spot the idiocy.
– Sounds like some of that good ole’ “Oh my gawd, the poor dears simply couldn’t breathe without my help” Socialism, hard on the job.
– Happily enough, I have a great deal more confidence in my students.
Sadly, in this matter, steve and nishi have it right. Even though nishi still can’t make a coherent argument to save her life.
Eh? Which facts are those?
Sadly for ID, TOE is testable, and negatable, so it qualifies as a scientific theory. ID is neither testable nor negatable, and is therefore not a scientific theory. There’s some notion running around that TOE is not testable or negatable, either. False. You don’t need to have a laboratory experiment to negate a theory; you simply have to have data that contradicts the theory. For example, if Einstein were to have posited that his general theory of relativity explained the precession of Mercury’s perihelion, and then data showed that no, it didn’t, that would negate the theory that the precession of Mercury’s perihelion was an end effect of general relativity. It might actually negate general relativity itself, in conjunction with other data. Note that this isn’t a lab experiment, it’s observations. Just as fossils are observations.
Last time we tossed around this subject, someone asked about transitional fossils. My response was pretty much ALL fossils are transitional, and that it’s awfully convenient to define transitional fossils as those fossils that don’t exist.
I’ve seen polls that say a majority of Americans do not ‘believe’ (as if belief is what’s requested or required) in evo. I have some hope that we can change that, and that we can become a more scientifically literate country, libs and cons, believers and atheists.
But this is certainly not contributing to that….
Steve @ 111
If you’ve read my posts in this thread, I don’t think you would conclude I disagree with you as to the teaching part. The politics business overtly injected into science education by anyone, of any party, I condemn. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It is not the way to go about learning.
Discovery Institute? Pah. They’re not interested in discovering anything they don’t already catechize.
Very good point Slartibartfest. I said it wasn’t science because it doesn’t predict anything, but the reason that’s so important is because it allows for falsification.
Sdferr:
#94–I think you’ve hit it there. The question shouldn’t really be whether TOE is taught or not, it’s teaching it or anyother theory as rock solid fact. It has always seemed to me that the holes in TOE cause it’s defenders to bend over backwards to support it, even to the point of overstating the evidence.
Teach it as a theory, maybe even the best theory we have to explain evolution, but don’t teach it as fact.
Carin
That got a hearty laugh out of me!
OK Sdferr – I did have you wrong. My bad.
“- Sounds like some of that good ole’ “Oh my gawd, the poor dears simply couldn’t breathe without my help†Socialism, hard on the job.”
Musty we shoe-horn everything into “you’re a commie”? Seriously, this is absurd.
What kind of scientist are you BBH?
“Note that this isn’t a lab experiment, it’s observations. Just as fossils are observations.”
– They absolutely are. Yes. Unfortunately the fact that they exist in their own right tells us not a single “fact” about their relationship to one another. Trust me Slart. As a scientist myself I really wish they did. Putting and end to this cross-bashing nonsense from both sides would make me entirely happy.
– And when that moment comes, as a scientist myself, I will be at the head of the line at endorsing the real discovery. But until then, no cigar.
…I mean, I could be wrong. Do we have any actual ID proponents out there? If so, what would negate ID? I’d guess that it would be something like evidence that there is no designer, but I’ve been told that you can have a design without a designer.
Not true in my experience. Sometimes you’re lucky to have a design with a designer.
– Physicist steve,
Yes, just so: there’s a theory that has the entire universe dismantled and reassembled between time quanta, but it doesn’t help us predict anything, so we ignore it. Just as I’m ignoring the suggestion that similar fossils have absolutely nothing to do with each other; there’s no sense in even postulating a relationship. I mean, we see that literally all the time in the here and now: cows give birth to sparrows, and frogs lay eggs that hatch into monkeys.
…although possibly you were suggesting something different. Since you didn’t elaborate, though, I made up something ridiculous and ridiculed it, just to keep myself amused until you did elaborate.
– and I don’t recall accusing you of communistic leanings. But its been my experience that taking a position that people just can’t make it without your kind and caring guidence may give you warm fuzzies, but its a piss poor way to teach people to problem solve and think on their own.
“it has no designer” is not really grounds for falsification because it’s proving a negative.
To be a possibly credible theory, it needs to make predictions of what’s been observed and do so better than evo. Considering the breadth of convergent evidence (and this really is the most overlooked thing in the evo ‘debate’), this is laughable.
Then again, that the DI documents leaked to during the Dover trial revealed that ID was a workaround for the SCOTUS creationism ruling, the whole thing is a sham anyway.
In George H. W. Bush’s voice: “not gonna happen”.
What kind of physics?
Plato believed in essential reality
He also believed in lying for the common good.
“I mean, we see that literally all the time in the here and now: cows give birth to sparrows, and frogs lay eggs that hatch into monkeys.
– Slart – truth be known we aren’t even sure we’re talking about monkeys or buicks. The pronlem isn;t that simple. Again I wish it were.
The Nishi:
my Sufism and neoplatonism are philosophies, not scientific theories.
get the difference?
Yeah, I know exactly what the difference between philosophy and scientific theory is. It’s been proven time and again that The Nishi does NOT understand that distinction, nor does it understand Plato.
It’s also a “cafeteria Muslim” and couldn’t argue its way out of a wet paper sack.
BBH, with respect: you’re making nishi-grade arguments.
A) I’m not going to take your word for it; sorry, but no.
B) You’re going to actually have to state an entire idea for me to even know what you’re talking about. Give understanding a chance.
– Particle/Optical – how about you steve.
Unable to persuade people in open debate, the LOLCat retreats into religious posing.
WEDGE!
cognitive neuroscience
Edu Guy: “He also believed in lying for the common good”
Well, with the caveat that it’s a statement made in a made up story about one of many made up cities with made up rulers and when they finally figure out where they want to go they realize that they can’t get there from here. Plato is slippery that way. Socrates didn’t write because he didn’t know how to write. See the Phaedrus.
Would you be in favor of teaching that failing a TOE, QM and relativity are wrong and the only possible explanation is God did it?
I don’t understand why people keep trying to insist that I believe ID should be taught in the science classroom. I have never, nor do I believe I ever will, hold that position. Is it not possible for me to acknowledge the various problems with “accepted” science without being an advocate for throwing all the rules of science out the window?
Needed an extra ‘not’ in there, it appears. Lemme try again. Soc didn’t write. He knew how to write. He chose not to. (except in the sand. remind you of anyone else?)
i have decided it is a personal sin
You determine what’s a sin? I must have missed that chapter in Sufism for Dummies.
Sheesh, even The Nishi’s religious principles are self-referential.
It’s truly all about The Nishi.
Sdferr
Agreed.
I’m not a scientist, so perhaps I’m merely missing something, but is ToE repeatable? Perhaps I am merely misunderstanding differences between science and the scientific method.
– Ok Slart….In laymans terms. We started out trying to find the origin of our species, and so far we haven’t been able to find a single origin of any species. No beginning point, or evolution by graduation from like species. None. Nada. Its a completely perplexing result. Its so perplexing as to be just about impossible. But there you are.
– All the hand waving, and temporizing by well meaning people, even some of our own, is just a manifestation of the frustration we feel.
– As I said earlier. Our intelligence tells us its there. We know it has to be there. Everything we’ve ever learned has prepared us for it to be there.
– So far. It isn’t there. In fact, its so “not there” we can’t even take comfort that we’ll be sure we’ll find it. That really sucks. If we could at least be sure we will with enopugh research, it might not be so bad. But so far we don’t even have that to hang onto. It serves no purpose I can think of to nod sagely and pretend things are otherwise.
The Borman 6 girl haz got to haz soul! Got to haz Soul!
Putney says, the Borman 6 girl haz got to haz soul.
Edu Guy
Wouldn’t Father Mendel’s pea experiments count? Or working with populations of drosophila?
serr8D, this is for you.
i laffed off my head. ;)
i got that from NRO, haha.
forgot to give props.
This looks to be just another variation of the “no transition fossils” argument. Still: TOE doesn’t rest on there being an origin. TOE isn’t about origins. In fact, it’s arguable that under TOE, there is no origin other than speciation (or abiogenesis, but that’s a noncrucial origin for TOE). Speciation has been observed.
Sure, I get the frustration with nothing to be pointed to. Evolution isn’t a tangible. It’s not something you can bronze and display on your living room wall. Neither is gravity, but I don’t see anyone other than theoretical physicists wailing in anguish about there being nothing there.
Having no explanation for gravity doesn’t mean that we can’t write equations to predict its effects. We’ve got a theory for what gravity does. I don’t see the big problem, here. We don’t insist that we teach gravity in school as if we’re really not sure that it exists.
BBH
I’m not certain, but I’m not sure you should go as far as “not find a single origin of any species”. If you mean only to point into the distant past, say 3.3 billion years ago, well, yeah we are working with a dearth of data. If, on the other hand, you’re looking at contemporary species the mechanism of heredity and speciation are pretty well known and described.
so how concerned should we be that nishi keeps addressing someone that hasn’t commented on this post?
Not too, Maggie
Sdferr
I’m not sure about Mendel, unless we restrict ToE to only heredity within a single species, and throw out the idea of mutation accounting for advantage in survival.
Do you have anything written in layman’s terms regarding drosophila that you could point me to?
I was mulling over possible dislexia or other.
no thnx cowboy.
im not gonna be baited into talkin about my religion.
i already got a chuir a ruith na cuthaig (sent to chase the cuckoo) by that lesser shaitan dan collins.
im done for now.
“We don’t insist that we teach gravity in school as if we’re really not sure that it exists.
– Which brings us full circle, back to my statement that I can enjoy the beauty of my models, quite totally apart from what I consider to be silly arguments about whether they are “true” representations of atomic constructs or not.
– I know they are simply models. I know that because at each level of knowledge we acquire on any given subject, our models refine. Sometimes to such a degree they need to be completely replaced. I have done that myself in some instances, so I know first hand it is reality.
– I think in that regard, when I see the zealous unthinking adaptation of some aspects of science onto a layer of politically contentious bickering, I just have to shake my head and let it go. Science for mischief is how I view it.
Before I get too far into this, I want to note that my life-sciences kungfu is not strong; I tend to argue this from the standpoint of whether it’s science.
I am also not a scientist, but I play one on TV.
I wasn’t paying attention, I guess. Neither did I think we were embedded in a discussion of whether evolution is “true”. Where it comes to science, nothing much is true, and nothing is all-descriptive. We don’t even know for sure why there’s matter, or even what matter is. Most people don’t think at this level, though, and most high-school-level science classes don’t bother to note that we don’t even know what this mass property of matter is. Why should we come out and discuss whether TOE is “true”, at that level?
EDU
Lemme go back to your question and see if I have it right. I probably don’t. So:
“…perhaps I’m merely missing something, but is ToE repeatable? Perhaps I am merely misunderstanding differences between science and the scientific method?”
I offered Mendel and Drosophila (d. melanogaster because that’s what I worked with in school instead of peas) as examples of repeatable experiments, two among thousands, hundreds of thousands(?) that get us to a theory. Darwin used domesticated animals. None of these gets us all the way there by themselves, but all are repeatable. X-ray chrystallography of DNA can be repeated, for instance.
But you don’t mean “can ToE” be repeated in the sense of: by wiping all the minds of everyone who’s been infected with ToE clean, starting over in the world as it lays, will the new un-infected people rediscover ToE as we have it today?
“Why should we come out and discuss whether TOE is “trueâ€Â, at that level?
– I don’t advocate for any sort of restriction. That was my point to steve. Give hids the tools of critical thinking, let them see all viewpoints, and then get out of the way and let them run the world.
dan, ill forgive you if you link The Pain
so funnie.
omg, i want to bear that guyz hilarity enchanced children!
“Do not count her out until she has been completely disintegrated into her component atoms, and those atoms dispersed across the galaxy beyond any hope of recombining. We are in, I suspect, for a long and strange summer.”
im not gonna be baited into talkin about my religion
It truly is your religion. I’m confident that it is shared by no other Sufi, let alone Muslim.
Oh, and your neo-Platonism?
That’s “yours” as well.
I suppose what I mean is that the scientific method has steps, and that one of those steps requires that if you can “prove” something by doing A, B and C, then I should be able to repeat that process and come up with the same conclusions. If ToE was merely another name for heredity, then I wouldn’t have this question, but ToE isn’t merely heredity. It requires natural selection based on genetic mutation. Or am I wrong?
Nishi
I did not think of neoplatonism as religion, but rather as an obscure school of philosophy circa 200-400AD. And I had no intention of prying
look….here is what will happen.
gormless school boards will write strength-and-weakness into the science curricula, and try to force that dumb DI faketextbook onto the curriculum.
parents that are violently opposed to their children recieving a substandard education (dur, they actually WANT their kiddos to have a chance to go to stanford-or-MIT) will get a judges order to cease and desist (citing Dover), and then vote the trogyldytes out (like Dover).
kk?
No, I don’t think you are wrong. I do think that defining Theory of Evolution is very hard, not least since discoveries in the subject proceed apace and I would therefore tend to believe that the definition changes almost constantly in order to accommodate new findings.
troglodytes
live in caves
You talk a lot for someone that’s “Done” LOLCat.
equity of education is general law.
that is the SCOTUS question it will come down to eventually.
Nishi, you are doing much more damage to science than the DI folks possibly could. Because you can’t form a decent argument to save your life, and you nearly always wind up lumping everyone not behind your keyboard as some kind of aberration.
Which makes it kind of painful agreeing with you, to be honest. Imagine what it’s like for those you seek to persuade.
IOW, you absolutely suck at this sort of thing.
“parents that are violently opposed to their children recieving a substandard education”
– Would that include a restrictive curriculum, limited to a single POV nishi?
dur, im not persuadin.
im flatout astonished at the quality and quantity of the intransigent unrepenetant stupidity here and griefin on the theocons.
i dont want to persuade, i want to punish.
and gloat, too i guess.
;)
Sdferr
I agree that the changing nature of the discoveries does make it harder to nail down, and thus adds to the confusion and the ease in which it is politicized. Add to that the idea that many seem to want to point to evolution as somehow giving credence to abiogenesis and you are just setting the stage for an argument. Not that arguments are bad, but if no one is really listening to each other then whats the point?
– Reading your quixotic rapacious rants, I can believe you when you say conflagrate gloating at your own bigotry. would indeed, seem a badge of honor to you.
– Keep the faith nishi. If raw Marxist materialism ever comes into vogue you’ll be in your cups.
No, you’re not. Clearly. Didn’t I just finish saying that?
And I’m flatout astonished at the substitution of quantity for quality in your comments. Astonished, astonished, astonished, I am. Did I mention that I’m astonished? Let me repeat it a few dozen more times, in case you missed it.
If I cared, I might. The secret here is: no one cares what you think.
Punish…how? By extending the thread so long that those of us with antiquated versions of Explorer watch the comments march off of the left-hand margin? Yeah: that’ll show me. I think this punish word, it does not mean what you think it means.
– Trust me nishi. The asocial nature of your rants, sprinkled on each and every thread, is punishment enough.
AND im fuckin furious at mybigself too that i let that asshat collins bait me into this trap yet again.
it is exactly a taomadh na mara le cliabh.
bailing the sea of stupidity with a creel.
and for those of you that don’t know what a creel is, its a holely box or bag that you drop into the water to keep you fish alive in while you finish fishing.
/spit
now im done.
EDU
I agree about arguments where neither party listens, ships pass at night, no point. Onlookers might learn something if they choose to. Now I’m confused.
But then, on the other hand, I should be, because I’m thick that way.
Your 181 seems to be concerned with “how to keep politics out” of a scientific argument that lends itself, willy-nilly, to incipient political questions, such as abiogenesis, (which word I take to mean ” a [alpha privitive] – bio [life] – genesis [becoming] or “from non-living-comes-living”), which in turn riles up religious believers so long as the dust-turning-into-human isn’t attributed to G-d but to some unknown chemical process.
Have I got that right, so far?
So the strategy of evolution opponents is–dare I say it–evolving?
…and yet I feel remarkably un-punished.
Perhaps you think the verb “to punish” means “to lob completely vapid meme-bombs citing texts you either haven’t read or don’t understand, while posing as an adherent to philosophies and religions that you know little if anything about.”
Now, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah: several dozen times from nishi, right before she reels off a string of six or seven comments in a three-minute period.
Oh, I forgot:
“to lob completely vapid meme-bombs written in a hastily adopted LOLcat-ese, not out of a sense of irony, but out of a desperate ignorance of grammar, spelling, and stuff like that…
Punish works, if it hurts to laugh.
COLLINS IS FULL OF WIN!!!!
– Sdferr – That would be pretty much it, if you escew the entire concept of a “spirit”, which is where the Evo’s have to go to make their case of a casual universe.
Casual or causal?
Oh, one last thing:
“…and when questioned about any assertions, comprehension of issues, or alleged philosophical or religious foundations to either:
1. Change the subject to WEDGE strategy!!!, or
2. Run away.
– Casual….random…..accidental.
Sdferr
Yes, you have it right so far. Although I would add that it isn’t just that religious folks might get upset that bothers me. The Theory of Evolution seems to naturally lead itself to questions such as where did this process start, which naturally leads to the idea that it can account for that. But it can’t, at least not yet, just as the theories involving the very large (Relativity) don’t naturally map onto the theories of the very small (Quantum Mechanics) and vice versa.
= “Causal” would be the ID side…..”caused by divine intervention”.
Keeping the politics out of the classroom can be done, to some extent, by the instructor. I don’t imagine it’s easy to do, just that with some thought and hard work that it can be done. Keeping the politics out of the local schoolboard? Not possible that I can see. Keeping the politics out of the schoolbooks? I guess Dover v. Kitzmuller is where we end up. Keeping the politics out of the science? I put my trust, faith, what have you, in the intense competition of the enterprise, to root it out eventually, though it (politics) may creep in at the margins here and there, if only briefly. (Briefly being measured on a geological timescale, not a human life timescale)
I think where lots of TOE opponents fall down is they think TOE has to explain the origin of everything.
Which, it doesn’t. But when it fails to explain that which it was never intended to explain, people think that means it’s no good. TOE, though, isn’t a theory of cosmology, nor is it putting forth any particular notions about abiogenesis.
That doesn’t negate it any more than the law of gravity is negated by failing to explain inertia.
BBH
Let me take Daniel Dennett as an advocate for Evolutionary Theory. He characterizes Darwin’s theory as a ‘universal acid’ or solvent, like the Alien’s blood it eats through everything. He argues for an entirely determinate universe. Nothing ‘casual’ about it. Nothing but physical events begetting still further physical events.
– It would be hard to keep out of the school room also Sdfeer. T wit:
Teacher: “Today we are going to cover the subject of life, and how it evolved on the earth. Science has been able to trace all living things backwards in time, through genetic studies of various animals, including man, and their fossils.”
Student: “Teacher, where did we all come from?”
Teacher: “Well science has discovered, through genetics – thats a study of the makeup of human cells in our bodies – that all people can be traced back to a single lady named Lucie around 200,000 years ago.”
Student: “If she was all alone, who was our daddy?”
–
–
–
– *crickets*
–
– …..and so it goes.
But when it fails to explain that which it was never intended to explain, people think that means it’s no good.
Wasn’t it Darwin who postulated the source of life in the same work in which he put forth the ToE? I seem to recall something about a warm broth and a common ancestor.
I’m not arguing, merely curious.
He can’t possibly. No one with a college degree could…could they?
haha, ok i lied…but you have to see the top ten
from #1 Science vs Norse Mythology
omg….i have been so wrong!
i need to mock you, and find the humor in it!
;)
BBH
I don’t think of the evolution of a new species as a “random” event or chance or accident. It is almost the exact opposite of that. The surviving members of a reproducing population that have say, an advantage from sickle cell haeomoglobin and therefore don’t succumb to malarial parasites are the only members of that population that could survive given the presence of infection.
We despaired over the state of the average American’s scientific literacy, currently at about the same level as a twelfth-century European peasant’s.
hahahaha
Written by a true genocidal, dictatorial eugenicist. Thanks for baring your shriveled, moldy, black as ink soul.
Collins, you magnificent bastard!
Fuck off for good this time, nishi, you immature, egocentric little turdlette.
“Nothing but physical events begetting still further physical events.”
– Exactly. But hes arguing exactly backwards. In an ongoing, one event begets another Universe, sans any sort of design, the only thing deterministic would be that there was nothing determinate about what might happen at any given moment.
– One of the only good arguments, beyond just adherent faith, for ID, is that we see ID in everything around us. That is a simple, yet powerful fact. Some of those designs are breath taking. They are also deterministic. That is, there are patterns, and processes, that proceed in an orderly non-random manner. So for this reason alone, we know that at least some part of our existence is not casual. But in itself, proves nothing beyond that,
but BJTex, she just found a new source for copypasting!!eleventy!!
Slart
Don’t tell me that Dennett feller has a college degree? No, no it can’t be. An here all along I was thinking he was Santy Klaus and gonna bring me a new A.J.Ayers fan. It’s getting kinda summery round these parts.
omg….i have been so wrong!
i need to mock you, and find the humor in it!
You might start by watching Expelled with that in mind.
We despaired over the state of the average American’s scientific literacy, currently at about the same level as a twelfth-century European peasant’s.
Kinda like your writing level.
I don’t think of the evolution of a new species as a “random†event or chance or accident. It is almost the exact opposite of that. The surviving members of a reproducing population that have say, an advantage from sickle cell haeomoglobin and therefore don’t succumb to malarial parasites are the only members of that population that could survive given the presence of infection.
Exactly the point I was arguing the other week: evolution is a form of (non-capitalized, please note) intelligent design. As is this:
One of the only good arguments, beyond just adherent faith, for ID, is that we see ID in everything around us. That is a simple, yet powerful fact. Some of those designs are breath taking. They are also deterministic. That is, there are patterns, and processes, that proceed in an orderly non-random manner. So for this reason alone, we know that at least some part of our existence is not casual. But in itself, proves nothing beyond that,
It appears to be intelligently designed because it has evolved, which eventually leads to more and more efficient configurations, or designs.
Slart seems to prefer we use the word configuration, so perhaps I should call it Intelligent Configuration.
Perhaps you think the verb “to punish†means “to lob completely vapid meme-bombs citing texts you either haven’t read or don’t understand, while posing as an adherent to philosophies and religions that you know little if anything about.â€Â
Cowboy – Well said.
B Moe
Intelligent, except for that part where it put the mammalian optic nerve’s attachments and exit point from the eyeball. You go to war with the army you’ve got sometimes.
no, no, i was soooo wrong!
i didn’t see the potential, the pure entertainment value in your antique philosophies!
eureka!
– Well of course B Moe, in keeping with your point, theres nothing to say that the “intelligence” we see in the patterns around us could not just be the innate intelligence of nature itself. An intelligence learned through billions of years of trial and error survival. Nature as an entity onto itself. The whole greater than the sum of the parts.
– Now we can sit here as adults and enjoy the lively give and take on such things, even deeply esoteric in nature. The question is, if we followed a Orwellian proscription of education for our children, of the nature that griefer Socialists like nishi would impose, would our children be able to have such discussions.
– I think not.
Intelligent, except for that part where it put the mammalian optic nerve’s attachments and exit point from the eyeball. You go to war with the army you’ve got sometimes.
Exactly, it is a work in progress. Another hundred millenia it should be a lot better. If we can keep nishfong’s transhumanist buddies from fucking it all up.
It’s sad when you can’t even think up the insults on your own, nishi. Disappointing.
oh, im so very sowwy for griefin on you.
i have seen the light, had the epiphany.
i appreciate your intrinsic value as entertainers!!!! you are hilarious!
thank you, thank you dancollins, for leading me to the gold!
An uair a bhios sinn ri òrach
Bidheadhmaid ri òrach;
‘S nuair a bhios sinn ri maorach,
Bidheadhmaid ri maorach.
[When we are seeking gold,
let us be seeking gold;
And when we are seeking bait
let us be seeking bait.]
See? i was looking for intelligence, but i found amusement!
the “intelligence†we see in the patterns around us could not just be the innate intelligence of nature itself. An intelligence learned through billions of years of trial and error survival. Nature as an entity onto itself. The whole greater than the sum of the parts.
Works for me. Interesting that nishfong thinks that high school kids are too ignorant to be exposed to such thoughts, and that by narrowing their curriculum to only the strictest facts we might raise them above the medieval mindset of us troggs who like to actually think about and discuss these things. It’s like the renaissance never happened.
I’m positive that you told me you believe that Allah created the universe, twodigit.
haha, lulz, BBH, they can discuss that in philosophy class.
Or in bible college!!!
hahahaha
;)
Nishi must be ecstatic, look at all the attention it’s getting – the kind of attention it can’t get in the real world, because the keening demands for validation just don’t go very well with the superiority complex and the inability to, as a reknowned international journalist recently praised Obama for, “string sentences together into paragraphs.”
ow ow ow, oh please stop!
“the “intelligence†we see in the patterns around us could not just be the innate intelligence of nature itself. An intelligence learned through billions of years of trial and error survival. Nature as an entity onto itself. The whole greater than the sum of the parts.”
haha, im pretty sure animism belongs in comparative theory of religion, not science class.
hehe, omg u guyz crack me up.
just like little chimpanzees or bobonos in little lab smocks, hehe.
with glasses and pocket protectors, hahaha!
On the other hand, it probably thinks it’s the center of attention everywhere it goes, even if no one addresses it, so maybe six of one, half-dozen of the other.
– Except. “something” had to have originated all the things that came before. Unfortunately even you nishi.
– And that is where all the trouble starts.
The really cool part is that the “entertainment” she feels is coming entirely from within her own mind. No one here is arguing the positions she claims they are. I have heard insanity can be amusing, at least for a while.
You seem particularly obsessed with rigid compartmentalization, nishfong. Do you still eat on plates with those little compartments so your peas don’t get over in your mashed potatoes?
I wonder if nishit realizes that the caricature she is arguing with does not exist amongst the people she purports to be mocking. I know, rational thought is too much to expect.
Eh? A diffraction pattern is non-random, but it doesn’t say anything at all about our existence.
What’s making it better?
Slart
The snark answer to what’s making it better is “losers dying offspringless on account of their loseryness”. But then you knew that already.
What’s making it better?
Trial and error. Evolution. The demands of nature. The competitiveness of the food chain. You know, stuff.
Ok, then. As long as it’s not P-cubed-I.
Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,†which became “intelligent design,â€Â
Wouldn’t it have been quicker to just write the column stating simplye “I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about and haven’t spent a moment researching Intelligent Design?”
#116
Comment by steve on 6/5 @ 9:50 am #
BBH – I study the brain, and I’m awed by the beauty of it every day. But that awe explains nothing.
Equally, saying there’s a creator is not a thoery. It makes no predictions. It’s is not science and it’s not explanatory of anything.
Just as long as you keep in mind that the rigorous inquiry you so admire began with the inquiring into the nature of god. Even when you strip back your cosmology back to its inception you are left with a first cause, what started what.
When scientists can explain how homing pigeons work, and shit like this,
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/265991.php
I will completely be cured of my agnostic ways, but as for now, are you trying to tell me “Voodoo Wasps and Zombie Caterpillars” just happens?
B Moe
Thanks for that wasps and caterpillar link. Way cool thing, nature. The results of metaphorical arms races between parasites and hosts beget some of the strangest phenotypes going, no question.
You are so behind the curve. That’s the main reason you’re acknowledged at all, and it has been for quite some time.
saying there’s a creator is not a thoery. It makes no predictions. It’s is not science and it’s not explanatory of anything.
Saying there is no creator is no theory, either. In fact, rejecting one possibility by default, even before beginning your work, is called “bad science.”
TOE does not make a claim of no creator, Christopher. So: strike one.
But TOE gives the provenance to claim that since we made ourselves from the primordial ooze there is no need for a creator. And it is ‘science’ which stakes such claim.
Yet the fossil record falsifies TOE on its face (There must be a continuous fossil record from the ooze to the present copious exemplars of species – and there isn’t) so TOE qualifies as religious belief since it is devoid of the required evidence.
You have a great website. Keep up the good work.