16% of US science teachers are creationists
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 13:00
VIEWED: 11658
PAGE 1 of 2
Another sign of these scary times:Quote:
Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in US schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science - and especially evolutionary biology - tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles.
US courts have repeatedly decreed that creationism and intelligent design are religion, not science, and have no place in school science classrooms. But no matter what courts and school boards decree, it is up to teachers to put the curriculum into practice.
"Ultimately, they are the ones who carry it out," says Michael Berkman, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.
But what teachers actually teach about evolution and creationism in their classrooms is a bit of a grey area, so Berkman and his colleagues decided to conduct the first-ever national survey on the subject.
'Not shocking'
The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2% said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.
However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% - about 12.5% of the total survey - said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
Science teaching experts say they are not surprised to find such a large number of science teachers advocating creationism.
"It seems a bit high, but I am not shocked by it," says Linda Froschauer, past president of the National Science Teachers Association based in Arlington, Virginia. "We do know there's a problem out there, and this gives more credibility to the issue."
Better training
When Berkman's team asked about the teachers' personal beliefs, about the same number, 16% of the total, said they believed human beings had been created by God within the last 10,000 years.
Teachers who subscribed to these young-Earth creationist views, perhaps not surprisingly, spent 35% fewer hours teaching evolution than other teachers, the survey revealed.
The survey also showed that teachers who had taken more science courses themselves - and especially those who had taken a course in evolutionary biology - devoted more class time to evolution than teachers with weaker science backgrounds.
This may be because better-prepared teachers are more confident in dealing with students' questions about a sensitive subject, says Berkman, who notes that requiring all science teachers to take a course in evolutionary biology could have a big impact on the teaching of evolution in the schools. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13930-16-of-us-science-teachers-
are-creationists.html educational systems are failing us and will keep us from competing with the rest of the world. As an indiction, tho' I'd have to purchase the full article, I came across the following listing of how American 12th grader taking upper-level science courses compare to other countries:Quote:
I'd have to buy the article to find out exactly what countries they were compared with, but it's not promising information any way you look at it.
In Physics: they scored 9th out of 13 countries
Chemistry: they scored 11th out of 13 countries
Geometry: they scored 13th out of 13 countries
Algebra: they scored 12th out of 13 countries
Calculus: they scored 13th out of 13 countries
Biology: they scored 13th out of 13 countries http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4449128?uid=3739560&uid=2&am
p;uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56262697653
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
In Physics: they scored 9th out of 13 countries
Chemistry: they scored 11th out of 13 countries
Geometry: they scored 13th out of 13 countries
Algebra: they scored 12th out of 13 countries
Calculus: they scored 13th out of 13 countries
Biology: they scored 13th out of 13 countries
I'd have to buy the article to find out exactly what countries they were compared with, but it's not promising information any way you look at it.
I was gonna ask that very question. Followed the link to the article, and there it was in one of the footnotes. The countries were:
Belgium, Canada, England, Finland, New Zealand, Scotland, Hong Kong, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Sweden, and Thailand.
An odd mix of our cultural predecessors, small countries, and Asian powerhouses. I DO WONDER exactly why those countries were chosen-- maybe the only ones with data available? maybe they were the only countries that scored better on any of the tests? Notably missing from the list-- Germany, France, China, India, and Russia. I don't think that including them would have does the USA any good, mind ya. I also consider, as personal opinion, that ALL of the Scandinavian countries have a track record of respecting Education; I'd have liked to have seen numbers for Denmark, Norway and Iceland.
At least we do rate superior to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, and North Korea, our recent and current enemies or opponents.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd like to hear what 'creationists', specifically young earth types, have to say about the bio stratification of the fossil record.
Oh, that's right.. THEY CAN'T !
They may try some silly explanation involving Noah and the flood, but sadly for them, there IS no evidence which supports their views. It's not even a theory.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'd like to hear what 'creationists', specifically young earth types, have to say about the bio stratification of the fossil record.
Oh, that's right.. THEY CAN'T !
They may try some silly explanation involving Noah and the flood, but sadly for them, there IS no evidence which supports their views. It's not even a theory.
Maybe you should ask Sarah Palin, since she's such a big hero of yours. It's really funny how many of those young Earth creationists you support. Just another example of your myriad hypocrisies.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Without reading any of that......
Assuming you're not a micro-biologist....
What makes any "theory" more important than the other?
I'm just asking because even though I refuse to dive headfirst in either the Evolution or Creationism pool, I also can't find any logical argument that they could both exist in a plain that wasn't exclusive of each other.
Actually, I find both sides to be quite obnoxious....
I'm glad I'm not going to school now.
Being taught either Evolution or Creationism as fact as a 12-18 year old would be the same as the Jahova's Witnesses bothering me every Sunday at 1:00PM sharp like clockwork on Sunday.
At least I don't have to open my door to them or be graded on it.
In the end, who really gives a flying F?
If dinosaurs of Evolution or dragons of WoW existed, that seems really cool.
If my ancestors were red-assed monkeys that threw shit at each other and fucked any female monkey not already pinned down.... cool...
If the world is only 6,000 years old today and the "bones" buried underneath were just tools of a god to see how we'd react to them..... cool....
In the end, it effects my life no different either way.
F Evolution,
F Religion,
F Government Education,
F The Vatican's (non taxed) Teachings
If you have faith, you have it. If you don't, you don't. I see no harm in children being taught both ways at the same time. Let them decide for themselves.
Since Science will NEVER prove or disprove "God", I think it's all the biggest red-herring and BullShit point out there when there are real issues to discuss.
F Religion, or the lack-thereof......
Invest your time into something worthwhile and stop talking about this bullshit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Maybe you should ask Sarah Palin, since she's such a big hero of yours. It's really funny how many of those young Earth creationists you support. Just another example of your myriad hypocrisies.
More of a 'big tent' view, actually. No hypocrisy here. But keep on reachin', lil guy.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Remember how you said Carter raised taxes ? It's here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52174
Care to discuss how you were really, really wrong on that?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Remember how you said Carter raised taxes ? It's here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52174
Care to discuss how you were really, really wrong on that?
No, psycho, I don't remember saying that, because I never did. I said he TRIED high taxes. Which he did. And for that, I wasn't wrong.
Now, kindly go frack yourself.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What makes any "theory" more important than the other?
*sigh*
A theory is a scientific model, based upon solid evidence, and agreed to be generally correct by a community of researchers who are experts in the field. Theories can be expanded upon or updated, but many of them are very close to being scientific law (example: the Theory of Gravity has been updated to the Law of Gravity, because a metric shit-ton of empirical evidence has shown that, yes, gravity always works like that, and there are equations that describe the behavior of objects interacting with gravity accurately every time they are run. Equations can't really describe evolution, so it may never become a scientific law; but it's not far from one is the point I'm making.) What makes the theory of evolution/natural selection "more important" is that it is actually a theory. It has been observed, repeatedly, by several research groups, in the laboratory and the field. Bacteria go through several generations in the space of a week, and can be observed adapting and evolving by anyone with a petri dish and a microscope. The famed fruit flies are the same way, and you don't even need the petri dish or microscope.
Contrast "intelligent design," which is not a model based on testing or observation, has never been peer reviewed, in fact cannot be peer reviewed, is not agreed to be generally correct by experts in the field of biology, and basically does not fit the actual definition of the word theory. In scientific terms, it is a postulation, at best, and will never be more than that because testing and observation are not possible. Therefore, as the courts have ruled, it is not science and should not be taught in the context of science class.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well done PR. If folks would take the time to read and understood what you just wrote, the world would be a much less batshit crazy place.
And I have to say to 6 - I haven't seen you around here in a long time (I've been out of it a while myself), but I don't recall you walking so close to the border of batshit crazy land as you're doing in these recent threads. What's up? How did you get so bitter and emotion driven -- nearly irrational, I'd say -- in the year or so since you last posted here? It's quite a change.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What makes any "theory" more important than the other?
*sigh*
A theory is a scientific model, based upon solid evidence, and agreed to be generally correct by a community of researchers who are experts in the field. Theories can be expanded upon or updated, but many of them are very close to being scientific law (example: the Theory of Gravity has been updated to the Law of Gravity, because a metric shit-ton of empirical evidence has shown that, yes, gravity always works like that, and there are equations that describe the behavior of objects interacting with gravity accurately every time they are run. Equations can't really describe evolution, so it may never become a scientific law; but it's not far from one is the point I'm making.) What makes the theory of evolution/natural selection "more important" is that it is actually a theory. It has been observed, repeatedly, by several research groups, in the laboratory and the field. Bacteria go through several generations in the space of a week, and can be observed adapting and evolving by anyone with a petri dish and a microscope. The famed fruit flies are the same way, and you don't even need the petri dish or microscope.
Contrast "intelligent design," which is not a model based on testing or observation, has never been peer reviewed, in fact cannot be peer reviewed, is not agreed to be generally correct by experts in the field of biology, and basically does not fit the actual definition of the word theory. In scientific terms, it is a postulation, at best, and will never be more than that because testing and observation are not possible. Therefore, as the courts have ruled, it is not science and should not be taught in the context of science class.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
I'm not arguing gravity, and good for it being upgraded to "law" status....
If I fall off a 500 foot cliff, the "law" of gravity dictates that 9 times out of 10 it will kill me.
Disproof of God or Proof of God will never reach that conclusion....
I don't care how many brilliant scientists, whether they're in the 19% or not have a go at it....
It's an unwinnable argument
I'd hate being a student being taught either one of those unproved "theories" as fact on tax payer dollars.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Remember how you said Carter raised taxes ? It's here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52174
Care to discuss how you were really, really wrong on that?
No, psycho, I don't remember saying that, because I never did. I said he TRIED high taxes. Which he did. And for that, I wasn't wrong.
Now, kindly go frack yourself.
Sure, sure ... Nixon and Ford raised them but DIDN’T 'try' high taxes. And Carter who LOWERED them, did 'try' high taxes. That's why you're so fun to laugh at. You and your RapFacts™
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'd hate being a student being taught either one of those unproved "theories" as fact on tax payer dollars.
*sigh*
I will attempt to simplify what I said, since you clearly did not understand it.
Theory = proof exists
Religion = no proof exists
Therefore, religion cannot= theory.
Following that:
Intelligent design = religion, and religion cannot= theory
Therefore, intelligent design is not a theory.
BTW:
Quote:
If I fall off a 500 foot cliff, the "law" of gravity dictates that 9 times out of 10 it will kill me.
No, it doesn't. Really, it doesn't dictate anything. It reflects the simple fact that you will fall, and describes how rapidly you will accelerate towards the ground.
There is nothing in the law of gravity describing its lethality to you or any organism. The lethality of a fall is determined by other factors; gravity just makes the falling possible, and the scientific laws describing the behavior of objects falling due to gravity... they are not like legal terms. They do not "dictate" anything, but rather describe known phenomena. This isn't something that someone came up with and said, "This is the law, now." This is something that decades of observation, measurements, and calculation led to the construction of, and because it was always accurate through thousands of tests, it is referred to in science as a law.
I can't stress this enough: Scientific laws are not abstract rules for behavior, they are descriptions of reality, arrived at through exhaustive testing and observation by multiple parties. Scientific theories are, in essence, the same thing, but may be missing mathematical formulas in their descriptions of reality, or may be adding detail as more testing is done. Something as huge and varied as evolution is a theory because testing of all its possibilities would take more time and resources than we will likely ever have, and also because we don't have time machines to go back and examine all the details of how every species evolved. None of this invalidates it as a scientific model that describes known, observed phenomena. "Intelligent design" is not such a model and it should not be taught as such.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Remember how you said Carter raised taxes ? It's here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52174
Care to discuss how you were really, really wrong on that?
No, psycho, I don't remember saying that, because I never did. I said he TRIED high taxes. Which he did. And for that, I wasn't wrong.
Now, kindly go frack yourself.
Sure, sure ... Nixon and Ford raised them but DIDN’T 'try' high taxes. And Carter who LOWERED them, did 'try' high taxes. That's why you're so fun to laugh at. You and your RapFacts™
Girls! Girls! You're both pretty. Can we stay on subject, here? Why don't you two start your own thread so you can argue? The rest of us will just check in from time to time to see how it's going.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Mal4, missed-cha! Interesting to hear Six didn't used to be so angry/crazy...I think I only met him this time around.
As to folks reading and understanding, as we've discussed before, it doesn't WORK that way. Religious types would of course come up with "Yes, God can't be proven, that's the whole point of faith" or else "...but the Bible says..." or somesuch thing. It's not about reading and understanding, it's about, first off, actually raeding, and second, being willing to even conceive of the possibility.
And not only do some want creationism taught in science class--the LAST place it belongs, but in some cases they want it taught INSTEAD of evolution, which I find...well, there are no words! There's nothing wrong with teaching "intelligent design"--or whatever--but also the idea that it's being taught in SCIENCE class! Whtever their argument in favor of it is, exactly what Rose explained is why it has no business whatsoever being in a class about science, obviously.
Thanx for finding out which countries were involved in that study--between my eyesight (and yes, I did enlarge it) and time, I didn't bother. I do wonder how/why those were picked, as opposed to some others you mentioned. Surely Germany would have been relevant, and unquestionably the Nordic countries...
It's just another sign of the dumbing-down of America, to me--yet another thing I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In eighth grade our science teacher mentioned in passing that she was a creationist, but we did spend time watching well put together videos about evolution in class. My tenth grade biology teacher spent lots of time on evolution, I think she probably believed it, but who really knows, I guess that's private if someone doesn't want to tell. I certainly believe in evolution on a small scale, breeds and similar species of animals, bacteria, survival of the fittest, the basic stuff, but it derails for me when we talk about things evolving into totally different things.
I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Why don't you two start your own thread so you can argue?"
I keep inviting him over to the proper thread. I even post the topic AND link! But for some reason he never shows up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Remember how you said Carter raised taxes ? It's here: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52174
Care to discuss how you were really, really wrong on that?
No, psycho, I don't remember saying that, because I never did. I said he TRIED high taxes. Which he did. And for that, I wasn't wrong.
Now, kindly go frack yourself.
Sure, sure ... Nixon and Ford raised them but DIDN’T 'try' high taxes. And Carter who LOWERED them, did 'try' high taxes. That's why you're so fun to laugh at. You and your RapFacts™
LOL!
Beautiful.
Of course, that simple logic will be ignored, but well done anyway.
Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
Girls! Girls! You're both pretty. Can we stay on subject, here? Why don't you two start your own thread so you can argue? The rest of us will just check in from time to time to see how it's going.
She started it.
And I got man parts.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Had to say – PHOENIXROSE, best explanation I’ve seen in two eloquent and simply worded posts – beautifully done – I’m jealous as hell.
Why those 13 countries in the comparison? In December 1989 (when the referenced study Changing America was published) those were probably the top 13 “most educated” countries in what I think would be the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as the referenced study identifies the comparison was to “countries the US is in competition with” and that is pretty much what OECD is about.
(sorry, have no idea what criteria is used to select “most educated”)
The OECD under their Directorate for Education lists as of April 2012 (the latest data I have), the “most educated” countries as;
1. Canada
2. Israel
3. Japan
4. United States
5. New Zealand
6. South Korea
7. Norway
8. United Kingdom
9. Australia
10. Finland
If someone is interested for specifics there is http://www.oecd.org/home that does offer a pretty wide range of statistics on a variety of subject matter. I do caution though, to quote Homer S., “Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.”
I find it interesting to note that in my country, creationism is a topic that is discussed in a number of high school science curriculums for the purposes of explaining why creationism had no scientific basis and the difference between scientific methodology and other methodologies. I will note that the teaching of creationism exclusively is illegal in any school that receives government funding.
While I didn’t have many good thoughts about GWB, he did say one thing I thought was rather intelligent in regards to the teaching of creationism/evolution, “Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . .”
I guess everyone has their moments, or maybe just a good writer….
Anyway, the topic just caught my eye and I figured I’d throw my few thoughts out.
Oh let the sun beat down upon my face
With stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space
To be where I have been
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanx, Deverse, I really appreciate that information. Is that list of countries in the order of highest educated in general? Would find that interesting, if it were.
I also get a giggle out of WHY creationism is taught in "your" country (which is?). That's the best purpose I've heard of yet for it to be taught!
As to what Dubya said, it has validity except in that creationism doesn't belong IN SCIENCE CLASS. Used the way you wrote, it's appropriate, but used as one of two scientific "choices", to me it's not. Maybe in a phylosophy clss? "Modern Thought"? Sociology? Anyway, some other class than science, because Creationism isn't Science.
Thanx for "throwing" your thoughts out, I sure appreciated them. Come back to the kitchen some time...if you can "handle the heat", that is! ;o) Intelligent voices are always appreciated (begged for, wished for, hoped for...)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
Girls! Girls! You're both pretty. Can we stay on subject, here? Why don't you two start your own thread so you can argue? The rest of us will just check in from time to time to see how it's going.
She started it.
And I got man parts.
Maybe you should spit 'em out, and not type with your mouth full, fatty.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Try basing all of science and medicine on your so-called "theory" of a 6000 year-old Earth, and see where that gets you, Jack.
Nobody but a true idiot could believe in any such "theory".
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Maybe you should spit 'em out, and not type with your mouth full, fatty.
Hello,
I'm not sure sexual orientation or obesity are relevant to the topic, even tangentially.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Thanx, Deverse, I really appreciate that information. Is that list of countries in the order of highest educated in general? Would find that interesting, if it were
@NIKI2
The list I posted is just the top 10 “most educated” countries OECD lists and is supposed to be in order of most educated at the top to least educated to the bottom. I too am a bit surprised at the list order, but since I do not know what the specific criteria are being measured to make the determination of who is 1st, 2nd. 3rd, etc., I have to suspect the criteria is finger painting, naval gazing and flower arranging as Canada is #1 (I’m from Canada so.....).
I find it logical that creationism is a discussion topic in school and is probably not a “bad” thing as a means to differentiate between a theory and a belief, as common usage of the word “theory” tends to make one think of an unsupported explanation. I agree that creationism is not science and schools should be teaching science in a science class.
Where creationism fits in to a school subject, I’m not sure, but philosophy sounds like a good place as it fits with the concept of rational argument.
As for handling the heat.... ROFL – I’m a fire fighter. Got to be able to handle “heat” in all its forms in my job.
Oh let the sun beat down upon my face
With stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space
To be where I have been
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, 6 was around before and was hot headed, but in a very different way. I have a theory as to why he's so different now, but I won't share.
Originally posted by Niki2:
Hi Mal4, missed-cha! Interesting to hear Six didn't used to be so angry/crazy...I think I only met him this time around.
Yay again PR, so well explained! It's a shame though, that it will go nowhere. Folks who operate under BELIEF rarely are capable of understanding what science really is. They don't seem to be able to grok the connection between evidence and theory.
I'm a bit at a loss as to what 6 thinks he's arguing here. No, the existence of God cannot be disproved. That's why creationism, etc, does not belong in the science classroom. It's not complicated. In fact, you'll find it in chapter 1 of any basic science textbook: if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it is not science. God is not science.
Evolution is science, because we see it all around us. It is reality. It is not a belief system.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Deverse,
thank you very much for your input. You seem to have directly answered my question. I wasn't being snarky or conspiratorial in asking why those countries were chosen. ( Well, I was , actually, but I didn't really mean it. more of a Devil's Advocate stance.) And not that I'm accusing you of claiming that. I appreciate hearing the probable basis for the selection.
And the reasoning behind teaching creationism/intelligent design in your country is purely genius.
Thanx again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:Quote:
Maybe you should spit 'em out, and not type with your mouth full, fatty.
Hello,
I'm not sure sexual orientation or obesity are relevant to the topic, even tangentially.
--Anthony
You're right, of course; they aren't.
I'm just putting this on a level that Rappy will be able to understand at his grade level.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Deverse,
thank you very much for your input. You seem to have directly answered my question. I wasn't being snarky or conspiratorial in asking why those countries were chosen. ( Well, I was , actually, but I didn't really mean it. more of a Devil's Advocate stance.) And not that I'm accusing you of claiming that. I appreciate hearing the probable basis for the selection.
And the reasoning behind teaching creationism/intelligent design in your country is purely genius.
Thanx again.
No harm – no foul – and I didn’t take your post that way as I looked at the list and wondered why those countries and where the information came from as well. “Changing America” doesn’t specifically say, but OECD data makes sense. The CIA World Factbook or the UN’s Education Index didn’t make sense as they generally measure literacy rates of age groups rather than specifics in selected subject matter that are considered to be critical to overall development of a country. The latter being an OECD thing.
Again, I only think they are OECD data.
I was also wondering about those countries (Germany, France, China, India, and Russia) so I just searched and it seems while the 2012 OECD report does not appear to be on the web, the 2011 is still available and can be found here; (just be careful of the PDF under the “How to Obtain this Publication” as it is big and could take a while if you don’t have a really good internet connection)
www.oecd.org/edu/eag2011
or here for 2009 results
http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/oecd-education-rankings/
Oh let the sun beat down upon my face
With stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space
To be where I have been
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Maybe you should spit 'em out, and not type with your mouth full, fatty.
Heard that one a lot in your day, huh?
So, implying that a straight man is gay... seems like quite an insult in your world, huh? Nothing could be worse than being gay, is that what you're saying ? Seems so.
Homophobe. But leave it to Kwickie to drag the thread down several notches, and way off topic. Again.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"More of a 'big tent' view, actually. No hypocrisy here. But keep on reachin', lil guy."
More of a clueless chasing after the most-right-wing-favorite-of-the-moment.
"And I got man parts."
You do? Is that why you keep running away from threads where you're wrong?
"So, implying that a straight man is gay... seems like quite an insult in your world, huh?"
No seriously, more like it’s the only way you'll ever have those 'man parts' you claim to have.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DEVERSE:
Had to say – PHOENIXROSE, best explanation I’ve seen in two eloquent and simply worded posts – beautifully done – I’m jealous as hell.
Why thank you
Trust me, I've worked hard to be able to explain things like this. I'm a science major, and my dad is always very interested in what I'm studying and/or talking about, but he is not a scientist, so I need to be able to break it down for him. I also have a close personal relationship with someone who commonly gives presentations on human anatomy, biology, and evolution, so I get a lot of knowledge from him as well as from my classes. Apparently there's always at least one person who wants to debate evolution with him, so after a decade he's gotten a lot of answers all neatly lined up, and he likes to share his stories.Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I'm a bit at a loss as to what 6 thinks he's arguing here. No, the existence of God cannot be disproved. That's why creationism, etc, does not belong in the science classroom. It's not complicated.
Yeah, I'm always a bit flabbergasted by the "you can't disprove god" argument. That sort of statement is vacuous in science, and there's no context where it works. If I claimed there was some chemical in the brains of dolphins that controlled ocean currents and backed it up with, "Well, prove me wrong!" the scientific community would shake its collective head and laugh at me. If I told a group of astronomers to disprove the existence of Endor, they would blink and tell me to get the hell away from their expensive equipment. And if I tried to introduce those sorts of postulations into the science curriculum of a nation's schools, claiming they were theories, every teacher and administrator would personally slap me upside the head. For the life of me, I will never understand why things get so muddied up when it comes to religion.
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I have a theory as to why he's so different now
Heh...
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Maybe you should spit 'em out, and not type with your mouth full, fatty.
Heard that one a lot in your day, huh?
Who was it who said, "So, implying that a straight man is gay... seems like quite an insult in your world, huh? Nothing could be worse than being gay, is that what you're saying ?"
Oh yeah - that would be you. So why did you just imply that I was gay? Is it because that's the worst insult you could come up with?
It's okay, Rappy, we all know how homophobic you are; you show it every time you prattle on about how marriage has "always" been one man-one woman...
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"More of a 'big tent' view, actually. No hypocrisy here. But keep on reachin', lil guy."
More of a clueless chasing after the most-right-wing-favorite-of-the-moment.
I'll take Palin over Biden 6 days a week and twice on Sunday. Hell, I'll take her 2-3 times, EVERY day !
And speaking of 'favorite-of-the-moments', it seems more and more is coming out about the Dem's former choice for the man who'd be king, John Edwards. Seems he had an array of mistresses, at the same time, while campaigning for President, and betraying his terminally ill wife.
Bravo, Dems. Real class act ya got there.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kwickie - How is stating that marriage historically has been between a man and a woman in the least bit 'homophobic '? It's hating gays to tell the truth now ?
And you have some serious comprehension issues. I didn't imply you were gay. You implied it towards me. You're confused, and it shows.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Try basing all of science and medicine on your so-called "theory" of a 6000 year-old Earth, and see where that gets you, Jack.
Nobody but a true idiot could believe in any such "theory".
I didn't say that I believed in that. I think I've made it quite clear that I'm an Agnostic, and I actually base most of my beliefs on anything based off the fact that since I'm 50/50 about there even being a god that you're going to have to do a lot better than cite books written by people I've never met to convince me that many other things I don't have experience with are fact.
If you want to know about things I view as fact today, I'd be happy to tell you the best way to extend electrical fixtures, the best ways to restore cracked walls and ceilings and the best paint to use to finish the job. Although I haven't figured out exactly the best way of growing new grass over 1,600 sq ft of bare dirt, I can tell you what I would NEVER do again and what I would try the next time. I can tell you have a good chance of being able to fix your own furnace without shelling out more than 10 bucks if you know how NOT to blow yourself up while working on it. I could talk all day about a hundred different ways you could make your hard earned money work the best for you, and the FACT that the money you can save after you have made it and paid taxes on it is actually worth more than securing a raise that will bump you up into a higher tax bracket. I could teach you how you can navigate the housing market today and that even if it takes you almost a year to find it, as long as you're willing to put in the work, you can buy a house today that would have cost nearly 3 times back in 2005. I could tell you that if you do your due-diligence and build an UN-breakable case for your arguments that you can see a meaningful reduction in your property taxes without having to hire a lawyer.
These are tangible things. These are real life experiences, a majority of which I've only experienced for the first time in the last 2 years. These are the things I believe in. These are things that I can actually prove.
I don't really give two shits about the scientific community's justifications about why what they believe and can never prove is any more legitimate than what the religious community's justifications about their beliefs are. There's only 4 possible solutions to the whole Religion VS Science...
1) Science is right, and Religion is wrong.
2) Religion is right, and Science is wrong.
3) Neither of them are right.
4) Both of them are right at the same time.
And whatever gray areas exist in between...
My whole point is, any way that all pans out, and I doubt any one of us will know the answer to that until we're dead, it doesn't effect my life positively or negatively any way.
All I'm saying is that you Science Minded people are as annoying as the Jehova's Witnesses who keep knocking on my front door every Sunday at 1PM like clockwork.
No thanks.....
I will not join either of your cults.....
Far too many important things in life that I actually have control over to hand my "faith" over and worship at the shrine of either Religion or Science.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't really give two shits about the scientific community's justifications about why what they believe and can never prove...
This, right here, is where the whole thing falls down. What, exactly, does the scientific community "believe and can never prove"? Please give me specifics, because you are throwing out this accusation of belief without proof, when the entire purpose of science is to collect data and believe in things that are proven.
Since I've already given you examples of evolution that can be observed in the space of a week, and you have ignored that, I want to know what "proof" you think it is that biologists don't have for their model of how it works.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kwickie - How is stating that marriage historically has been between a man and a woman in the least bit 'homophobic '? It's hating gays to tell the truth now ?
It's hating gays to deny them the same marriage rights based solely on their orientation and what your religion (wrongly) claims. Marriage simply HASN'T "historically" been between a man and a woman for the majority of history.
Quote:
And you have some serious comprehension issues. I didn't imply you were gay. You implied it towards me. You're confused, and it shows.
How did I imply it towards you? I implied that you never had any man parts, unless they were in your mouth. I've never implied that you were a man. When I implied that you had them in your mouth, your responded with "bet you've heard that before", which IS implying I'm gay, to the exact same degree I implied it about you. No more, no less.
The reading comprehension issues are, as always, all yours.
You can be as gay or straight as you want, and I'll still support your right to marry whomever you love, as long as you're all consenting adults (I still won't endorse your plan to get with 14 year-old cheerleaders, though).
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't really give two shits about the scientific community's justifications about why what they believe and can never prove...
This, right here, is where the whole thing falls down. What, exactly, does the scientific community "believe and can never prove"? Please give me specifics, because you are throwing out this accusation of belief without proof, when the entire purpose of science is to collect data and believe in things that are proven.
Since I've already given you examples of evolution that can be observed in the space of a week, and you have ignored that, I want to know what "proof" you think it is that biologists don't have for their model of how it works.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
Jack has funny notions of what constitutes "facts", PR. Why, just yesterday he claimed it as an irrefutable "fact" that unemployment has NEVER been this bad.
Kinda hard to convince someone using facts when they don't even understand the meaning of the word "fact" in the first place.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Prove dark matter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Prove dark matter.
Hello,
To my knowledge, Dark matter is unproven by science. It was, last I heard, a hypothesis.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Prove dark matter.
It was, last I heard, a hypothesis.
Dark matter is a theory. That is, a scientific model based on observations of gravity in space. It is currently considered the prevailing theory, the one that best explains all the observations that have been made to date.
The evidence of dark matter lies in its gravity. As I previously discussed, gravity has several decades of testing and observation backing it up, and yes it always behaves that way. The observation of gravity interacting with matter in space gave rise to several models that might explain it, but dark matter won out in 2006 when images of galaxies colliding showed strong evidence that something invisible to our eye was exerting gravity on them. Alternate models had included gravity being stronger than predicted in certain contexts, which would explain certain observations, but these models could not explain the interaction of colliding galaxy clusters. From NASA:
In galaxy clusters, the normal matter, like the atoms that make up the stars, planets, and everything on Earth, is primarily in the form of hot gas and stars. The mass of the hot gas between the galaxies is far greater than the mass of the stars in all of the galaxies. This normal matter is bound in the cluster by the gravity of an even greater mass of dark matter. Without dark matter, which is invisible and can only be detected through its gravity, the fast-moving galaxies and the hot gas would quickly fly apart.
The hot gas in this collision was slowed by a drag force, similar to air resistance. In contrast, the dark matter was not slowed by the impact, because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. This produced the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the data. If hot gas was the most massive component in the clusters, as proposed by alternative gravity theories, such a separation would not have been seen. Instead, dark matter is required.
This result also gives scientists more confidence that the Newtonian gravity familiar on Earth and in the solar system also works on the huge scales of galaxy clusters.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So are you saying that dark matter was "discovered" to explain the currently un-explainable?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
So are you saying that dark matter was "discovered" to explain the currently un-explainable?
Hello,
To my knowledge it hasn't been discovered yet. But it would help to explain things that are confusing otherwise.
Everything science 'discovers' to use your word helps to explain things that are confusing otherwise.
'Un-explainable' is a loaded premise. Everything science has explained was once 'un-explainable' to someone. Until it wasn't. Like the properties of the computer you are using.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
To my knowledge it hasn't been discovered yet. But it would help to explain things that are confusing otherwise.
Pretty much spot-on. "Impossible" might be a better word than "confusing." The point of the quotes I posted was that the observed behavior would not be possible without the existence of matter we could not see.
Let me repeat that, because I'm sure that aspects of what I'm saying will be ignored or over-simplified: the observed behavior would not be possible without the existence of matter we could not see.
Similarly, the observed behavior of multiple generations of life would not be possible without mutation, variation, and natural selection; the theory of evolution.
Quote:
'Un-explainable' is a loaded premise. Everything science has explained was once 'un-explainable' to someone. Until it wasn't. Like the properties of the computer you are using.
Also spot-on.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Something I always find interesting about the science vs religion debate is this...
Science isn't trying to disprove God. It's just trying to describe the universe.
Religion frequently tries to disprove science.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't really give two shits about the scientific community's justifications about why what they believe and can never prove...
I will not join either of your cults.....
You don't care about evidence in the face of mythology, and Science is a cult. Ooooh kaaaay, crazy man. Whatever you say. Ill be backing away now...
Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,
Something I always find interesting about the science vs religion debate is this...
Science isn't trying to disprove God. It's just trying to describe the universe.
Religion frequently tries to disprove science.
--Anthony
A good point, and a solid correlation to the notion that science changes with new evidence, whereas religion stands resolute in the face of it.
Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Even an educated guess is still a guess.
I am no creationist, far from it. But I do have an open mind.
It used to be a widely held scientific belief that the sun revolved around the earth. This was a hypothesis which fit the perceived evidence of the time.
I am not saying dark matter does not exist. But it is a hypothesis which best fits with the identifiable evidence which currently exists.
I think this is kind of what Jack was talking about earlier but I could be wrong.
I think he was right about the vehemence found on both sides though, IMHO.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I do have an open mind.
Hello,
A necessary component of science.
Quote:
it is a hypothesis which best fits with the identifiable evidence which currently exists.
A good description of science in general.
Quote:
It used to be a widely held scientific belief that the sun revolved around the earth.
And a religious one, interestingly. But science marched on in the face of new evidence. It is the nature of the thing.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It helps to know the definition of dark matter, since it is much less mysterious than the name would suggest. It simply is matter that we can't see.
The observed rotation rate of galaxies cannot be explained by the amount of matter we can see. Add up all the visible stars, dust, etc in a galaxy, and calculate the gravitational force from this visible matter and see if it can make the outer edge spin as fast as it does. (This is all first year physics stuff btw. Kinda cool that basic principles yield such a crazy result!) The matter we see cannot cause such fast rotation. There must be something in galaxies which does not emit light (dark) but has mass (matter).
Sure, we don't know that dark matter actually is, and there are strange theories out there from MACHOS to WiMPS. But the fact remains - galaxies contain matter that we can't see. Hence, dark matter. It exists, and the basic definition of it really isn't that complicated.
Anthony - well said re science and religion!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double double
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It exists
Hello,
Toil and trouble. ;-)
All of the available evidence suggests its existence.
I think there may be one or more competing theories, though? Not in wide acceptance. Quantum Gravity, I think? Not sure what it all means.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:Quote:
It exists
Hello,
Toil and trouble. ;-)
All of the available evidence suggests its existence.
I think there may be one or more competing theories, though? Not in wide acceptance. Quantum Gravity, I think? Not sure what it all means.
Certainly, there are competing theories, some quite esoteric. What I'm trying to get at is that in principle it's not so complicated. It might simply be lots of dark planets like Jupiter, or burned out stars that don't emit enough light for us to detect them (MACHOs). Or it could be some crazy weird particles (WiMPS) or even some strange property of "empty" space. But I think what happens is the weird theories get talked up because they're weird, and then people who like to view science as a "belief system" point to the bizarreness as some indication that dark matter is a crazy fever dream with no evidence.
Not so. The evidence is quite straightforward. Something we can't see is exerting a gravitational force in the universe. We don't know what it is, so we call it dark matter.
I was just slightly involved in a MACHO research project, which is the extent of my practical knowledge of this. What I think would be cool though, is if the dark matter effect were some kind of property of space, and somehow related to Hubble's expansion. I can't explain how that would work, because I really have no idea, but it seems like it'd be cool. And somehow logical.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Made me think of this:
Facts are stubborn things.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So hey little Rappy, do you want to keep running away from the threads where you're HI-lariously wrong?
Carter raised taxes?
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52174
how Chicago is SO VIOLENT and it's ALL the fault of democrats organizing communities?
The fruits of community organizing
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52073
46 Hurt, 8 Killed in Violent Chicago Weekend ( Not recycling Memorial Day Weekend story )
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52199
how it is that you mistake a MICHIGAN lawmaker for a member of Congress and THEN claim that Congress has been around 225 years!!?
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=52256&p=2
The Congress somehow manages to survive some 225 years w/ out the word 'vagina' uttered on the floor, or in the records, and NOW it's a terrible affront to women to ask for some measure of decency and decorum?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you BDN 
I think we do in fact view this the same way....
Forgive me if I'm putting words in your own mouth, but given the context you put it in, I'd like to further explain where I'm coming from......
Religious people think.... "Wow... there's a lot in the world that can't be explained. Since there is a 2,000 year old book out there that explains it, and my parents believed in it, I will blindly have faith that whatever "bald spots" it covers are true just because".
Science people think... "Wow... as far as we've gotten today, there's a lot in the Universe that can't be explained. We have theories everywhere, but how do we make them cohesive and not fight against one another? Ahhhhhhhh! Dark Matter!!!!
The Ultimate placeholder!
The Ultimate Deus Ex Machina!"
May I submit that Sciences' "Dark Matter" IS Religions "God"......
Nothing more, and nothing less than a convenient "place holder" to explain away all that can't be explained until something better comes up.
Hell... I'm open enough minded to believe that Dark Matter and God both exist and that they're both the same "thing".....
Find any yahoo on either "side" willing to admit that is a possibility.
In the "North", They pondered the same questions about the "bald spots".......
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
May I submit that Sciences' "Dark Matter" IS Religions "God"......
Hello,
I don't think they are quite comperable, and I'll tell you why.
No amount of new evidence or information will cause God to be removed or replaced. It is in the nature of religions (those where God is featured) to make the questioning of God a Bad Thing.
However, new evidence and information can cause Dark Matter to be removed or replaced. It is in the nature of science to accept the questioning of assumptions.
Science is the process of seeking answers. There is often a hope that the answers found will help solve problems, though science itself is merely a process for understanding the universe.
Religion (at least those centering on a God) is the process of believing an answer that has already been given, and trusting in that answer to solve problems. There is no quest to understand the universe in religion, only a quest to follow the will of the creator. This will is usually outlined in an immutable document.
I think there is more room for growth and change in Science. It's Searching versus Believing, to my mind. I say this as someone who believes (religion) but refuses to stop searching (science.)
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Anthony....
You're right, and you're wrong.....
Ask any "Old Testiment" believers what they think about "New Testiment" believers.....
My dad was Agnostic and my mom was a "twice a year" Catholic. I grew up celebrating the good ending to Footloose. The Simpsons' Ned Flanders would consider the ending to Footloose a porno movie.
God has ALWAYS evolved..... just ask the Lent practitioners who eat Fish on Fridays.....
Old Testiment God would have thrown a lightning bolt up their ass for that....
Most of your observations otherwise, if not all of them, I either agree with fully or contemplate all the time on. I have no answers, nor will I EVER have any answers that would convince anyone but myself to believe differently. I'm an Agnostic, like my father, but I truly want to believe that there is a reason for all of this and there is an underlying excuse for how horrible people in general are.
We're supposed to be sentient beings, no matter if we were "made" or just an accident over billions of years, but here we are......
We suck....
Humans suck...
We are the worst thing that has ever happened to this planet, and "Dark Matter" forbid us to ever find a way to colonize our shit on other planets.
I'm sure I sound crazy here, but I really hope that we're living in a world where all the 6 billion people who were neither rightous enough to find Nirvana nor depraved enough to find Hades are just floating here in limbo. To us, it seems like life as it should be, but for all of us here, it's our final test.....
What will we make of it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Religious people think.... "Wow... there's a lot in the world that can't be explained. Since there is a 2,000 year old book out there that explains it, and my parents believed in it, I will blindly have faith that whatever "bald spots" it covers are true just because".
Science people think... "Wow... as far as we've gotten today, there's a lot in the Universe that can't be explained. We have theories everywhere, but how do we make them cohesive and not fight against one another? Ahhhhhhhh! Dark Matter!!!!
And then Jack thinks... Oh, wait. No, he really doesn't. Jack has decided that thinking big thoughts makes his brain hurt, so he doesn't think, he drinks. Yes, he's really advancing humanity, isn't he?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
six - did you read my post? There is nothing religious or belief-based about dark matter. It is a logical theory based on a very straight-forward observation of reality. The fact that it is incompletely understood does not make it a matter of faith. There is something out there exerting a gravitational force, but we can't see it because our "eyes" are limited right now. Not long ago we couldn't detect or understand electrons, but they still existed. They weren't god. They were still just electrons.
Such is dark matter. Someday we'll have better "eyesight" and we'll know what it actually is. It may require a shift in our fundamental understanding of things, but that's not bad. In fact, that's the whole beauty of science. We don't need to cling to any kind of doctrine, and we don't need some mythological robed figure to tell us what to think. We will figure out The Truth by continuing to observe reality with as unbiased a view as we can, and we'll be willing to let go of ideas that don't match our observations of reality.
No, I don't really expect you to understand. Your posts lately are so bitter and emotion based that I'd wager you and reality are not seeing much of each other these days. Kind of gets in the way of grokking the universe for what it is if you're wearing glasses that are mirrored on the inside. All you seem to be able to see is a reflection of your own bitterness.
Goodness, that's got to be a sad world to live in.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Logical theory to me equates blind faith.....
One side strives to believe in one thing, and the other, well.... the other.....
What is reality Mal4P?????
For all we know, it could be upturned on us tomorrow.....
As I said before, I know plenty of things that I KNOW about that I'd be happy to help people with here. These are FACTS and I can vouch for them. Not only do I have an arsenal of How To Do things, but I can tell you a lot of How NOT To Do Things along the way.
In the mean time....
There's this meaningless BS going on.....
Even Einstein knew that his theories and ideas were only circumstantial... if His A+B=C theory today worked, there's no accounting for the unforeseen "D" swooping in and bastardizing the whole equation....
Good for him though, for making us all live under the constant threat of Nuclear skin cancer for the rest of humanities life. Glad he straightened that out for us. Thanks Einstein. Thanks Science.
I just hope that "D" swoops in someday and makes his reciepie for a bomb do nothing but grow flowers when it explodes.
And as for the rest, if there is a god, what makes you think I'd mindlessly bow to him?
I gave up the best job I ever had by picking too many battles and fighting for my friends and co-workers through two buy-outs. I was single and just saving money..... Most of the issues I couldn't care two shits about, but my "work family" was struggling with the changes. In the end, I was a "bad apple" and tossed aside. To this day, they still envy me for not NEEDING that job........
Job was only beholden to God when he actively made a point to Satan that somebody with nothing will be the most faithful......
I say, bring it.... oh, robed and bearded figure..... make an example of me!!!!!
When he tells me that the people I have known and loved for more waking hours than sleeping hours over the last 4 years will not be able to take care of themselves anymore, I'll then tell God to go fuck himself in the ass.
Of course that will never happen.....
But I took an "American Government" course back when I was 20 and it was all bullshit..... I paid my good money to get a course in how American Government worked, and all I got was a full-time advertisement for Democrat politics by a tenured teacher who made no small attempt to even hide how much he hated Republicans.....
Maybe that's my biggest reason for even posting here....
If that single teacher is the exception to the rule that I've been basing my ideas off of all other union teachers off of for the last 10 years, that's my bad..... I just don't believe it since 90% of the rich white elitists graduate with near zero college debt and go on to preach the government is good line....
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
six - did you read my post? There is nothing religious or belief-based about dark matter. It is a logical theory based on a very straight-forward observation of reality. The fact that it is incompletely understood does not make it a matter of faith. There is something out there exerting a gravitational force, but we can't see it because our "eyes" are limited right now. Not long ago we couldn't detect or understand electrons, but they still existed. They weren't god. They were still just electrons.
Such is dark matter. Someday we'll have better "eyesight" and we'll know what it actually is. It may require a shift in our fundamental understanding of things, but that's not bad. In fact, that's the whole beauty of science. We don't need to cling to any kind of doctrine, and we don't need some mythological robed figure to tell us what to think. We will figure out The Truth by continuing to observe reality with as unbiased a view as we can, and we'll be willing to let go of ideas that don't match our observations of reality.
No, I don't really expect you to understand. Your posNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Golly, another rant about his job status, tied to some borderline batshit crazy notions.
Do you use a form for your posts these days, Jack?
You're welcome to equate logic with "blind faith" in your mind if you so choose. But don't be surprised when you're laughed at for not getting it by such a wide margin.
Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, I got a question: If we start teaching creationism/intelligent design (after all, the Judeo-Christian theory), don't we have to start teaching OTHER religious theories of creation also?
I'm not sure what Buddhists, Confucians, or other current religions believe on the subject, but I do remember being taught, as literature, the Greek/Roman version, and the Norse. Whole lotta those ancient "primitive" religions had a grumpy old guy who lived on a mountain, threw lightning bolts, split himself in two, went to war with himself, created the Earth as an egg, watermellon or pumpkin, then hatched man out of it, created woman, had a big flood, established good and evil.
Don't they ALL deserve equal time, if we accept creationism as a valid theory? If not, why not? Just because the J/C's got the votes?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Golly, another rant about his job status, tied to some borderline batshit crazy notions.
Do you use a form for your posts these days, Jack?
You're welcome to equate logic with "blind faith" in your mind if you so choose. But don't be surprised when you're laughed at for not getting it by such a wide margin.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
Well, if he's not telling you about his awesome house or his credit score, really all he's got left to brag about are his trips to the glory hole, his great abs, and his giant pecs.
Hey, I may have just found that thing that Jack can't face about himself that forces him to get shitfaced drunk every night.
(That's not a homophobic comment, Jack; I accept you for who and what you are. I just wonder why you can't accept yourself.)
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Don't they ALL deserve equal time
Hello,
I think so, just not in science class. Science class is about science.
The other stuff can be covered in philosophy, world history, sociology, or any number of other categories.
I actually used to really enjoy all the various religions we were exposed to in my history class, during the time we were studying the history of various cultures. (Religion is often an important key to understanding a civilization.)
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Golly, another rant about his job status, tied to some borderline batshit crazy notions.
Do you use a form for your posts these days, Jack?
You're welcome to equate logic with "blind faith" in your mind if you so choose. But don't be surprised when you're laughed at for not getting it by such a wide margin.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
Well, if he's not telling you about his awesome house or his credit score, really all he's got left to brag about are his trips to the glory hole, his great abs, and his giant pecs.
Hey, I may have just found that thing that Jack can't face about himself that forces him to get shitfaced drunk every night.
(That's not a homophobic comment, Jack; I accept you for who and what you are. I just wonder why you can't accept yourself.)
Yep, I'm gay... you got me figured out Kwick. Man..... why didn't I think about that before!!!!!!
Thank you Kwick! Now I can finally quit drinking and with that saved money I can buy some leather assless chaps and with this new outlet for my oral fixation I can give up smoking altogether too!
If only it were that easy man...
I've got problems, that much is for sure but, sadly, barking up the tree of my sexuality isn't going to help me get to the bottom of them.
Any other theories?
And yes, my paid for house is awesome and my credit score is awesome.... but my pecs are no more than passable these days, and I'm sure that my six-pack is still somewhere under the 15lbs of beer fat.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Now I can finally quit drinking and with that saved money I can buy some leather assless chaps and with this new outlet for my oral fixation I can give up smoking altogether too!
All chaps are assless...that is all.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Now I can finally quit drinking and with that saved money I can buy some leather assless chaps and with this new outlet for my oral fixation I can give up smoking altogether too!
All chaps are assless...that is all.
Thanks Girlfriend! (And I won't even ask you how you know that Nick)
See Kwick!
Learning something new about this lifestyle everyday, Sister!
Maybe I can even kick my addiction to beef after I get my fill of this brand new world of protein intake?????
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Six: Reality is what we observe. What we REALLY observe, not the few strange little twisted trickles that manage to seep through that seriously self-focused filter you've got wrapped around your head. I mean, really? Yet another rant about your trials? Sorry, your troubles have no bearing on what defines science, and moves this conversation exactly no where. What is the point of trying to talk reality with you when all you see is "ME ME ME ME ME"?
Do you read your posts? I admit, I don't get through them anymore. I gave up after one of your Obama rants a few weeks ago that started with one half-assed misrepresented bit of news then spiraled into a bitter exposition of your deep hated. Basically, you were saying that Obama is bad because you hate him so much. (Probably, posts like that, and the above, are what happens when you're in your cups.)
NewOld: of course not all half-assed ideas of creation belong in science class. It does no good to compound a mistake by making lots more. I do see what you are getting at. Of course, the zealot religious people won't get it. One thing I've learned from RWED is that True Believers absolutely cannot apply logic in this way. They are so stuck in believing their God to be the Truth that they cannot draw parallels between themselves and other belief systems. They cannot draw a line with all belief systems on one side and observation-based science on the other. In their logic, it is only the Right (themselves) and the Wrong (everyone else). So to them only ID should be taught because only ID is the Truth. And all that evidence showing that ID is wrong? Well...
This reminds me of a long ago conversation on RWED about evolution, and I'm still bummed that a particular religious poster left in the middle of it. We got to the point where I asked how he explained all those fossils in museums around the world, like the fossils that show gradual changes as a species evolves. I still really want to know where he thinks those come from. Does he think that scientists sit in their basements, making bones out of paper mache? How else can he explain their existence, if he thinks evolution is completely false?
I don't understand how people live in this kind of denial. Perhaps they just don't let themselves think about it. Maybe that's part of why this poster left - he just couldn't let himself think about that question too deeply.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, NewOld, that's an excellent question! Of course, given this is a "Christian nation", the creationists would dismiss such a concept, but wouldn't it be fun to compare some of the other religions' beliefs...it would certainly show how ridiculous they ALL are, no offense intended to any creationists.
For example, one of the Hindu beliefs is thatitstarted with the sacrifice of the primal man, named Purusa. His body was the entire universe. The lower quarter of his body became the earth; the rest became the heavens. The various castes of humans came from parts of Purusa's body: his arms became the warriors; his legs the commoners, and his feet the serfs.
As to Buddhism, it's a long and complex explanation, but the simple version is that our world is created by awareness - the awareness of the beings that inhabit it. Evolution only gives a kind of history of how that illusion unfolds. (For the longer version: "The Buddhist view is that everything emanates from the Primordial expanse of Openness Clarity Sensitivity and is illusionlike- never really coming into existence, but the illusion is created by infinite intricate connections that are not anywhere and not in time. Time and space are part of the illusion that is emanating from that Primordial expanse". See what I mean?) There are others who believe in a kalpa ("cycle") of beginning; by beings who populated the universe in the previous kalpa are reborn; eventually, the universe dissolves; all living creatures return to the soul life, and the cycle repeats.
Even more interesting, there are differences WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH! Evangelicals and Catholics, of course, believe in Creationism. Yet Roman Catholic parochial schools have taught the theory of evolution as a probable fact for many decades. Some Protestan denominations have theistic evolution (a.k.a. called "process creation", or "multiple creation".) In this belief system, God originally created the universe. Later, God used evolution as the technique by which new species develop (is that "Intelligent Design?"). Mormons are straight Creationists (Bruce R. McConkie asked how could a Mormon obtain "comfort in the theoretical postulates that mortal life began in the scum of the sea..."). So in fairness we should be teaching ALL of those, even if only Christianity is accepted.
Quite a conundrum, if it were a matter of logic. Of course, it's anything BUT that...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
As a Christian, I have always found the usual creationist myth to be so limiting and inconsistent. It's much better to imagine it as a loose metaphor designed to impart some kind of idea rather than a literal description of creation.
I much prefer to imagine God as a 'thing' that existed before linear time was a concept, who expanded himself into a universe- creating the laws of physics as we understand them in the very process of his expansion. An entity outside of linear time, he could see and understand the progress of each particle or unit of energy throughout its entire lifecycle, and direct his expansion so precisely as to become the universe he wanted to see. Including all the particles that became Earth and all those particles and processes that became life and all the life that became humans. And because he existed outside of linear time he knows the past and the future as colors on a painting- And because he expanded himself to make the universe, he is everywhere. And in everyone.
The planned expansion may have included the eventual manifestation of entities that would contain a piece of his awareness, be able to examine the world from a different perspective, and communicate his favored concepts and ideas to the rest of himself. Prophets, sons of God, miraculous manifestations of power.
Well, that's how I imagine things. Needless to say I interpret the Bible rather loosely and non-literally. Evolution to me isn't a contradiction of God, but rather a damn impressive example of his power. That he can push a domino at the dawn of time- in a place before time- and have everything fall the way he needed it to fall to create the universe he wanted to manifest.
This is what I imagine when I read, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I don't understand how people live in this kind of denial. Perhaps they just don't let themselves think about it.
Here is an interesting article called "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science" that I think a few folks here might enjoy: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-moone
y
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
This reminds me of a long ago conversation on RWED about evolution, and I'm still bummed that a particular religious poster left in the middle of it. We got to the point where I asked how he explained all those fossils in museums around the world, like the fossils that show gradual changes as a species evolves. I still really want to know where he thinks those come from. Does he think that scientists sit in their basements, making bones out of paper mache? How else can he explain their existence, if he thinks evolution is completely false?
I don't understand how people live in this kind of denial. Perhaps they just don't let themselves think about it. Maybe that's part of why this poster left - he just couldn't let himself think about that question too deeply.
That was AntiMason, wasn't it? Yeah, that guy was a gem. And not the kind that's created over millions of years by heat and pressure, either. ;)
What really boggles my mind is how many of those creationists and young earthers are in the oil business. Where exactly do they think all that oil came from? Is it just God's Miracle Juice™? Do they imagine that their god just miracled that shit into the ground to make them rich?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fascinating article PR, u think they used RWED as a test study?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Here is an interesting article called "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science" that I think a few folks here might enjoy: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-moone
y
Good article, PR. for those who don't want to read the whole thing, here's a tidbit from page 1.
It's a "basic human survival skill," explains political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.
We're not driven only by emotions, of course—we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower—and even then, it doesn't take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that's highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about.
Consider a person who has heard about a scientific discovery that deeply challenges her belief in divine creation—a new hominid, say, that confirms our evolutionary origins. What happens next, explains political scientist Charles Taber of Stony Brook University, is a subconscious negative response to the new information—and that response, in turn, guides the type of memories and associations formed in the conscious mind. "They retrieve thoughts that are consistent with their previous beliefs," says Taber, "and that will lead them to build an argument and challenge what they're hearing."
I have to say, this is bang-on what I've observed. So maybe I'm emotionally pre-determined to accept it.
Off to read the rest...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're right - antimason was the center of that particular debate. I remember now that he brought up the same anti-evolution lame arguments a year or so later, and when I linked to the old thread and the old questions he promptly disappeared again. Go figure!
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That was AntiMason, wasn't it? Yeah, that guy was a gem. And not the kind that's created over millions of years by heat and pressure, either. ;)
But I was actually feeling sad about Causal leaving. Nice, rational, interesting person. And yet, when God came up for discussion and wasn't treated as a worship-worthy truth, but a theory to be questioned, this big emotional wall came up. He could not handle the questions that were asked, so he left.
I've come to realize my own bias on the matter: I view most religion as indoctrination. Not the kind of thing Anthony posted above, which I think is a lovely way to view the universe (though it's not my own take.) It's nice that it's uplifting, but leaves him open to questions and new ideas. The bad type of religious training gives itself away quickly: can it handle being challenged? Or does that emotional denial come up?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Six: Reality is what we observe. What we REALLY observe, not the few strange little twisted trickles that manage to seep through that seriously self-focused filter you've got wrapped around your head. I mean, really? Yet another rant about your trials? Sorry, your troubles have no bearing on what defines science, and moves this conversation exactly no where. What is the point of trying to talk reality with you when all you see is "ME ME ME ME ME"?
Do you read your posts? I admit, I don't get through them anymore. I gave up after one of your Obama rants a few weeks ago that started with one half-assed misrepresented bit of news then spiraled into a bitter exposition of your deep hated. Basically, you were saying that Obama is bad because you hate him so much. (Probably, posts like that, and the above, are what happens when you're in your cups.)
This isn't 4 years of this BS... but 12 years of it.
I posted just as much about how I HATED GWB as well.... get over yourself about that.
I could be completely sober and say that Obama was our worst president ever, and GWB is a very close second.....
The only reason Jimmy Carter comes in as third is because he never had the balls to be the Wendys that overthrew Burger King.....
I hate Obama
I hate GWB
If I wasn't shitting diapers when I was born, I would say the same about Carter.....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Yup, that's pretty much how I view organized religion, as a way to blindly accept what one is told without having to think about it and face the possible dichotomies. And yup,
Perhaps they just don't let themselves think about it.Quote:
That's what indoctrination is, brainwashing people into accepting whatever they're "fed".
I view most religion as indoctrination
I pretty much share your feelings about Six; I rarely read his posts anymore. Too much over-the-top craziness, repeated personal exposition of how he's so great, and blind hatred, not worth my time. Aside from which, given how little we see of Raptor lately, I can't help wondering...
Also, excellent article Rose, thank you. The excerpts Mal4 put up pretty much embody the pertinent statements, and yes, that's what I've observed as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dude Niki, I totally know where you come from...
Jack is totally out of line fucking his ass with a Romeney crucifix daily because he's a mindless REAGANot....
Seriouslly Niki....
You just don't read my posts because I don't read your BS woman's lib posts by some strap-on;vibrator wearing self-plea surer diatribes as your own words....
If you have words to say to me, I'll read them, as I always do. Forgive me for not reading 3 pages of your bullshit, 3rd party, meaningless, feminist quotes.
Don't put the end of this thread on me....
Put it on whatever mindless, man hating, lesbians you're posting from....
I think you're smarter than that....
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:Quote:Yup, that's pretty much how I view organized religion, as a way to blindly accept what one is told without having to think about it and face the possible dichotomies. And yup,
Perhaps they just don't let themselves think about it.Quote:That's what indoctrination is, brainwashing people into accepting whatever they're "fed".
I view most religion as indoctrination
I pretty much share your feelings about Six; I rarely read his posts anymore. Too much over-the-top craziness, repeated personal exposition of how he's so great, and blind hatred, not worth my time. Aside from which, given how little we see of Raptor lately, I can't help wondering...
Also, excellent article Rose, thank you. The excerpts Mal4 put up pretty much embody the pertinent statements, and yes, that's what I've observed as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pathetic. You don't like what someone says, so you call her a lesbian, as if that's grounds for dismissing what she has to say. As if her sexual status, lesbian or not, has anything to do with anything.
You're really pretty sad Six. I hope you find your way, because if you ever had a Way you are far from it right now. You are one desperately lost lamb. May the Powers save you from yourself.
Once you've slept it off, that is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uhmmm... Jack?
You know how you got sand in your pussy about not wanting personal stuff dragged from one thread to another?
You're doing it. You're treating this like it's your own personal "Let's Offend Niki" thread. I thought you thought you were above such things.
Niki agrees with you. That doesn't make her a lesbian or a dyke, or anything else, except someone who disagrees with you (and is willing to put up facts and figures to show why).
Similarly, even *IF* she were a lesbian, that doesn't render her opinions null and void, does it? Are you advocating that gay and bisexual people SHOULD be treated as second-class citizens and have fewer rights?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But you are more than okay with several posters calling Jack a pathetic, drunk, sockpuppet?
RWED, where hypocrisy knows no bounds.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually Kwick, I never called her a lesbian... not even once.....
I just said that her posts are derived from man-hating lesbian posters with biased daddy issues, which is true.
From our history of discussions, Niki is a proud hetro-sexual who has "beaten the curve" and remains married in her silver-to-golden years.
We live in a world now that (Western) "men", through science, aren't needed other than being milked for child creation. It's a sad fact, but it's true. Once the idiots in the Middle East are 2 generations indoctrinated by MTV soft core porn and no longer wish to die by fire in the name of Allah and the 72 virgins that await them in death, the male-female "war" is over.
That IS the world we're living in. Only God, if there is one, can judge us after the fact. Don't look at me to be the "John Conner" here. I'll be the first to line up for a woman dominated world. It's what I dreamed and fantasized about since I was 8, and I can even post a youtube timeline of all of the cartoons and tv shows that poured that idea in my head up until now.
At the same time though, I just really think it's amusing that I'm saying this on the very year in a public forum that the Aztec's calendar "ran out"....
Here's jack, slavishly eating twat while having one eye to the sky looking for evidence of "The Rapture".
I'm quite sure that I'd still be here when and if it happens. Just wondering how many friends and family I'd be missing then....
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Uhmmm... Jack?
You know how you got sand in your pussy about not wanting personal stuff dragged from one thread to another?
You're doing it. You're treating this like it's your own personal "Let's Offend Niki" thread. I thought you thought you were above such things.
Niki agrees with you. That doesn't make her a lesbian or a dyke, or anything else, except someone who disagrees with you (and is willing to put up facts and figures to show why).
Similarly, even *IF* she were a lesbian, that doesn't render her opinions null and void, does it? Are you advocating that gay and bisexual people SHOULD be treated as second-class citizens and have fewer rights?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FOR RIONAIRE
Evolution of one 'type' of organism into another 'type' in the laboratory:
Multicellular Life Evolves in Lab
More than 500 million years ago, single-celled organisms on the Earth’s surface began forming multicellular clusters that ultimately became plants and animals. Just how that happened is a question that has eluded evolutionary biologists.
But scientists in the Univ. of Minnesota’s College of Biological Sciences have replicated that key step in the laboratory using natural selection and common brewer’s yeast, which are single-celled organisms. The yeast “evolved” into multicellular clusters that work together cooperatively, reproduce and adapt to their environment – in essence, precursors to life on Earth as it is today.
Their achievement is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
It all started about two years ago with a casual comment over coffee that bridging the famous multi-cellularity gap would be “just about the coolest thing we could do,” recall postdoctoral researcher Will Ratcliff and associate professor Michael Travisano, both from the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior.
So they decided to give it a try. Then came the big surprise. It wasn’t actually that difficult. Using yeast cells, culture media and a centrifuge, it only took them one experiment conducted over about 60 days, says Travisano, who is senior author on the PNAS paper.
“I don’t think anyone had ever tried it before,” says lead author Ratcliff. “There aren’t many scientists doing experimental evolution, and they’re trying to answer questions about evolution, not recreate it.”
Despite their modesty, the achievement has earned praise and admiration from evolutionary biologists around the world.
“To understand why the world is full of plants and animals, including humans, we need to know how one-celled organisms made the switch to living as a group, as multicelled organisms,” says Sam Scheiner, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)’s Division of Environmental Biology. “This study is the first to experimentally observe that transition, providing a look at an event that took place hundreds of millions of years ago.”
Funding for the research was obtained in February 2011, with coauthors R. Ford Denison and Mark Borrello, adjunct and associate professors, respectively, in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior.
Ratcliff and Travisano gave the scientific community a glimpse of their discovery at a conference last summer and have subsequently been invited to talk about it at other meetings. The PNAS article represents the first time full details about the research have been disclosed. “The article provides us with the first opportunity to show the breadth of evolutionary change that we’ve observed,” Travisano says.
In essence, here’s how the experiments worked. The two chose brewer’s yeast or Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a species of yeast used since ancient times to make bread and beer, because it is abundant in nature and grows easily. They added it to a nutrient-rich culture media and allowed the cells to grow for a day in test tubes. Then they used a centrifuge to stratify the contents by weight. As the mixture settled, cell clusters landed on the bottom of the tubes faster because they are heavier. They removed the clusters, transferred them to fresh media, and grew them up again. Sixty cycles later, the clusters – now hundreds of cells – looked roughly like spherical snowflakes.
Analysis showed that the clusters were not just groups of random cells that adhered to each other, but related cells that remained attached following cell division. That was significant because it meant they were genetically similar, which promotes cooperation. When the clusters reached a critical size, some cells essentially committed suicide (apoptosis) to allow offspring to separate. The offspring reproduced only after they attained the size
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
But you are more than okay with several posters calling Jack a pathetic, drunk, sockpuppet?
RWED, where hypocrisy knows no bounds.
And you are more than okay with calling me worse than that. BDN, whose hypocrisy knows no bounds.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
Amen!
And then there's this.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/loch-ness-monster-cited-by-us-schools
-as-evidence-that-evolution-is-myth-1-2373903
There are times I say to myself, "Self," says I, "this cannot possibly be real."
And then I remember that this is "Lousyana" we're talking about.
These are people who still use the old fallback position of "If people descended from apes, why are there still apes?" And I have to answer, "If you descended from your parents, how do you have parents?" They actively believe that family trees cannot branch.
And then I have to remind myself again: This is Lousyana. Their family trees never really did branch out very much.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Actually Kwick, I never called her a lesbian... not even once.....
I just said that her posts are derived from man-hating lesbian posters with biased daddy issues, which is true.
Even *IF* that were true, again I have to ask, so fucking what? Is the argument invalid if the original statement came from someone gay?
If so, please go destroy your computer this very second, since Alan Turing was gay.
You have become exactly like PN, only without any supporting evidence.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Actually Kwick, I never called her a lesbian... not even once.....
I just said that her posts are derived from man-hating lesbian posters with biased daddy issues, which is true.
From what you've done in RWED lately Six, you are HARDLY one to dismiss anyone because of they might have "issues". (Which she doesn't - your whole premise of coming down on Niki here is laughable. She must have struck a nerve, huh?) But let's look at what you've been posting.
Sixstring the issue king ain't afraid to hijack threads with:
baggage baggage issue baggage
me me me me me
Which is fine if you really need to talk, because you surely are going through a rough patch and could use some help, but coming down on any poster in such a hypocritical misogynistic homophobic bullying way gets you exactly zero empathy from me. And if you don't like being called names, quit so perfectly fitting the bill of an immature, alcoholic, zero common sense asshole. Go back and read your posts again and you'll see what I mean. Nothing but complete self-absorbed asshat-ery.
Yeah, that's harsh. You earned it. Believe it or not, I can be quite friendly, but you'd need to quit acting the way you are to get any friendliness from this quarter.
Kisses.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't have any problem with anyone being gay. I'm the least homophobic person I know.
Now gays with an agenda, specifically female man-hating gays, are another story.
Heterosexual white males have enough laws today doing everything in their power to bring us down. Aside from smokers of any race, sex, religion or creed, we're the most opressed demographic out there in this brave new world (aside from those rich enough to not be affected by affirmative action). We don't need to add to that docket articles written by bull-dyke man-haters becoming "fact" in the American mainstream.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Actually Kwick, I never called her a lesbian... not even once.....
I just said that her posts are derived from man-hating lesbian posters with biased daddy issues, which is true.
Even *IF* that were true, again I have to ask, so fucking what? Is the argument invalid if the original statement came from someone gay?
If so, please go destroy your computer this very second, since Alan Turing was gay.
You have become exactly like PN, only without any supporting evidence.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Mal,
I didn't say Niki had any issues. I pointed out that articles she was drawing from were written by women who clearly have man-hating issues.
Aside from Byte, I'm probably the only one here who is really posting about all of the skeletons in my closet. It's actually quite liberating, to be honest. Thanks be to haken for allowing me a place to do such a thing, in a forum of my "peers" who I honestly have quite a bit of respect for, no matter how far right or left they lean.
Go ahead and call me things that I may or may not believe that I am. There's nothing you've "insulted" me with that I haven't wondered if it weren't true. You should probably add crazy to the list as well. I've heard that anyone who wonders if they're crazy actually isn't crazy, so I guess I got that going for me at least.
I love you M4P.
Kisses,
~6
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:Quote:
Actually Kwick, I never called her a lesbian... not even once.....
I just said that her posts are derived from man-hating lesbian posters with biased daddy issues, which is true.
From what you've done in RWED lately Six, you are HARDLY one to dismiss anyone because of they might have "issues". (Which she doesn't - your whole premise of coming down on Niki here is laughable. She must have struck a nerve, huh?) But let's look at what you've been posting.
Sixstring the issue king ain't afraid to hijack threads with:
baggage baggage issue baggage
me me me me me
Which is fine if you really need to talk, because you surely are going through a rough patch and could use some help, but coming down on any poster in such a hypocritical misogynistic homophobic bullying way gets you exactly zero empathy from me. And if you don't like being called names, quit so perfectly fitting the bill of an immature, alcoholic, zero common sense asshole. Go back and read your posts again and you'll see what I mean. Nothing but complete self-absorbed asshat-ery.
Yeah, that's harsh. You earned it. Believe it or not, I can be quite friendly, but you'd need to quit acting the way you are to get any friendliness from this quarter.
Kisses.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since my name came up so much in recent posts, I went back and read Sick's posts since I last posted (well, I skimmed them anyway).
All that from my three sentences about him? Yeah, I must have struck some kind of nerve with my little comments. Man has a talent for being irrelevant and obscene at the same time!
By the way, I'm bisexual. Where does the "women-hating", etc., etc., come from? Another thread about something? Interesting, if mildly so. Mostly, tho', the same 
I was reading before I "trash canned" his posts. More than anything else, 
-- irrelevant, repetitive, offensive shit over and over, mixed with some nonsensical "this is the way it is" statements like he's the end-all, be-all of information, which is so far from the truth it's laughable.
Nothing new here. "Better" men than he have gone after me, he just shows he has nothing to say...and says it at great length. Back to ignoring him...
(Thanx for the kind words, guys, you've pretty much got his number, in a nutshell.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Kiki, that to me sounds like a cooperative colony, like an ant colony, as opposed to a single organism of multicelled extraction. But thanks for thinking of me.
I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Now I can finally quit drinking and with that saved money I can buy some leather assless chaps and with this new outlet for my oral fixation I can give up smoking altogether too!
All chaps are assless...that is all.
Thanks Girlfriend! (And I won't even ask you how you know that Nick)
See Kwick!
Learning something new about this lifestyle everyday, Sister!
Maybe I can even kick my addiction to beef after I get my fill of this brand new world of protein intake?????
By "lifestyle" you mean "has seen a western" or "knows what chaps are in the first fucking place".... right??
Otherwise, you might be providing yet more evidence of general ignorance.
Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Hi Kiki, that to me sounds like a cooperative colony, like an ant colony, as opposed to a single organism of multicelled extraction. But thanks for thinking of me."
Sort of an interesting distinction. What makes a dangerous bacteria, a parasite, or a predator all different? Only size and time. In any case, I'm not sure they are an ant colony, b/c in an ant colony all the 'tissues' - the different ants - are separate and not stuck together. Whereas in a sponge for example, they are stuck together with the different parts doing different things.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Now I can finally quit drinking and with that saved money I can buy some leather assless chaps and with this new outlet for my oral fixation I can give up smoking altogether too!
All chaps are assless...that is all.
Thanks Girlfriend! (And I won't even ask you how you know that Nick)
See Kwick!
Learning something new about this lifestyle everyday, Sister!
Maybe I can even kick my addiction to beef after I get my fill of this brand new world of protein intake?????
By "lifestyle" you mean "has seen a western" or "knows what chaps are in the first fucking place".... right??
That was freaking epic. Yes, Jack, all chaps are assless, by design. What you wear UNDER THEM decides how much or little of your ass you show. Working cowfolk tend to wear pants under their chaps. Your mileage may vary.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What makes any "theory" more important than the other?
see phoenixrose's explanation of theory. In order for it to be a theory, there has to be evidence.
Quote:
In the end, who really gives a flying F?
If dinosaurs of Evolution or dragons of WoW existed, that seems really cool.
If my ancestors were red-assed monkeys that threw shit at each other and fucked any female monkey not already pinned down.... cool...
If the world is only 6,000 years old today and the "bones" buried underneath were just tools of a god to see how we'd react to them..... cool....
In the end, it effects my life no different either way.
Wow. So if you're happy to throw scientific thinking out the door, then you'd be happy to walk out of your second floor window. Gravity is just a theory, right? I read somewhere that some dude with a big S can fly, so maybe that's true for all of us. That would be cool too, I guess...
Quote:
Since Science will NEVER prove or disprove "God", I think it's all the biggest red-herring and BullShit point out there when there are real issues to discuss.
evolution does not discount the existence of all religious thought. There are plenty of people who do not consider the bible to be literal, and to glean teachings from it without buying it all lock stock and barrel. It's only the vociferous religious right who demand that we consider it to be word for word, contradictions and all, true.
OOOps, I see that this discussion has moved on to er....I don't know really...Niki posting rabid man hating vitriol, according to 6 who also believes he is an oppressed minority because he is a white male.
Weird.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Odd that Jack thinks minorities are oppressed when he feels like HE is one of the minorities. The way righties go on about how good minorities have it in this country, you'd think they'd be happy to be part of a minority!
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Wow. So if you're happy to throw scientific thinking out the door, then you'd be happy to walk out of your second floor window. Gravity is just a theory, right? I read somewhere that some dude with a big S can fly, so maybe that's true for all of us. That would be cool too, I guess...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME