I went to a Catholic school b/c of my Mom and city school district. That being said, we were told about dinosaurs, but then also told they did not exist. It was kind of confusing, we were told about Adam and Eve and then told by Sister Marie Cecile that it was kind of just a guess about the being of man.Originally Posted by swivel
I do not know many people who don't believe in evolution and I know TONS of people...just joking. But seriously, I only know of my Aunt who is an evangelical now.
I understand this. However, is it a smaller percentage than 10 years ago? 20? Is the rate of acceptance actually decreasing? Also, don't you think this is testament to an educational failure, rather than a linguistic one? Adjusting the terminology used does nothing to address the root of the issue.
Other modernized nations don't have this problem (well, except for Turkey, but it barely counts). They don't call evolution a law in their text books - they stand up to the lunacy that is fundamentalist religion. We need educational standards that give a middle finger to the Protestants in this country. Let them pull their kids out of school, rather than dragging ours down with them.
Last edited by Athena; May 8th, 2008 at 05:27 PM.
3 Member(s) thanked for this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
I was watching Nightline and they were talking about these tour guides who would take christian tours through science museums.
(read or watch the segment, we found it highly amusing)Out on the museum floor, Jack and Carter stopped the group in front of a window display that contains samples of sandstone that have ripples created by water and fossils of ancient life. Bill Jack asked his group, "How do they date the fossil? By the layer in which they find it. They date the layer by the fossil and the fossil by the layer," he said. "That's circular reasoning."
In the next moment he stepped past and turned his back to a display on radiometric dating, the method by which scientists determine the age of rocks through the rate of decay of their natural radioactivity.
When later asked why he skipped the display, Jack said simply, "We can't cover everything."
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
That works, too.
I was just trying to be Christian about it.
Boooo, boooooo! :p
Your humor causes me to shake my head and make me smile at the same time.
Now, see? That'd be a post worthy of a groan from me, if it were my thing.
That sounds pretty typical. I tried looking up the clip but I guess it was either moved or deleted.
Ugh. Im extremely exhausted, and its fucking late at night, so Ill make this brief.
First off, if my using foul language as I make points and back them up as to why Im making them, makes you liken the point to "U PPL DONT KNOW SSHIT" then thats your problem, not mine. Lady? If you can't deduct what is being said because I said whore, or piece of shit? Then you got a major fucking problem, much bigger than calling another poster here your "god". Kissing a little ass here to get a cheap Thanks may be impressive to you and some, but it isnt to me, so I guess we're even. ;)
HOWEVER---------point taken. I didn't have to call that whore a whore, and Mr. Thompson may only be a pile of trash, and not a piece of shit. No, seriously, all joking aside, it's the way I talk in real life. I dont have the fucking time or patience to worry about perceptions because of my foul mouth and foul typing fingers around here or anywhere else. I made the point, and you said the language weakened it, only if anything, you should've used the word distracted, because the point its self is rock solid, even if others here wont see it, because they themselves are so engaged in the culture war its self. :o If I were in a field where I had to make my point to try and actually sway someone's opinions here, or in any professional type of atmosphere, I wouldn't have used that language. But were talking about swiv, who says CHristianity is evil pretty much, and CPL, who has his mind perfectly made up, and Athena, who has scolded me ten fold over the phone and pretty much said Im a douche bag for believing what I do. :D They're posting buds, and I dont have to pretend to be more polite than I am around anyone here...they can think Im full of shit all day. This is my commentary, nothing more- only thing is, Im right. And I think, Im the only one being objective here.
I am not a creationist. I am not a scientist. I am fairly religious, yes, but I am not one of those guys who, because I believe there to be a God, will close my eyes to science...I love science. I am not involved in silly culture wars, hence I will not be drawn into silly debates about proving whether God is, or is not real, because it cannot be done, and I will not make this a Creationist vs/ Evolution thing, like it would be easy to do.
Simply...I think Clive Thompson's article is a poor one, made up of pure hypocrisy. And you say in your post:
totally sure but calling something "law" when current science shows it to be so is correct. Science is never rigid, things change and we learn more every day. Who knows, maybe someday we may find an instance where gravity does not work as we always thought it would. In anticipation of that event, does that mean calling it the "law of gravity"
Current science does NOT show macro evolution to be correct. If it DID show it to be correct, it WOULD be called Law. It has NOT been observed, and YES, that IS a criteria for something to be called scientific fact, I showed that already, and for those who say "how can we observe it, when it was billions of years old!?" , then you would have to REPRODUCE IT, to then observe it, ANOTHER something you have to be able to do to call it fact, and if we cant do those things, then how the fuck can we TEST IT!? We cant. Thats why its theory, babe.
I have nothing against any of this, or anyone thinking Im a flake. Im just saying....the topic Ive stayed on, is the article. Its a stupid one, IMO. Take out the whore and piece of shit, and see if you see it any different.....
Last edited by The Diabolical Mr. Lieman; May 9th, 2008 at 02:34 AM.
I disagree that events have to be reproducible AND observed to become law.
All of particle physics is based on interactions that we will never observe. We will only ever see the formation of microbubbles in vapor chambers, which are just the by-product of subatomic particles. They are no different than fossils.
Also, there is no way we can re-create any of our grand-scale cosmology. We can't form a neutron star out of our own collapsing orb. We won't be able to accrete our solar system again to make sure it always happens the same way.
I think you are purposefully setting the bar impossibly high in order to protect the ontological gaps that you cling to in order to find purchase for your gods. I can't believe that you admit to being superstitious and also attempt to claim objectivity in the same post. I like you better when you are just spitting cuss words and getting angry...
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
The opppostion to evolutionary law prey on misunderstanding. Evolution has been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. Furthermore evolution doesn't have to be observed directly, much like most of science, it does have to yield predictions about what we'd expect from the fossil record, genetics, etc., and the number of accurate predictions made based off of evolutionary law are staggering; a virtual mountain of data so solid that nobody has ever been able to produce a more viable theory to outmode it's findings. Ever. If you want to be unfair in raising the bar to the qualifications of evolutionary law you'd still be in a loosing battle. Biology wouldn't make ANY SENSE without it, none at all.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
2 Member(s) liked this post
Eeeeh, c'mon.
As for accusing me of setting the bar impossibly high in order to protect my god(s), lol, that's a bunch of horseshit coming from someone who's neck deep in the hokey little war you got going on against religion. I can't take you seriously when you talk to me about my objectivity when you make accusations, and you discredit what I say because of what I believe. You and I? We don't have the same definition of objectivity, I'll tell you that right now.
As for your thing against observation being a part of scientific law? Every part of science revolves around it. Every definition speaks of observation. Your point on the cosmos? We observe it reproduce all the time. It's there. We watch it. Study it. Test theories by observation....its not the same as having fossils here in our hands, and not being able to truly identify macro evolution as law.
I have a beef with the article, and quite simply stated macro evolution has not been proven fact by any means, and as a result, predictably, and sadly so, Im doing this as a result of my superstitious agenda. And I cant be objective.
Hey. Maybe Im wrong. Maybe all the culture warriors ought to make linguistic schools, and study linguistic sumo wrestling, linguistic boxing and all kinds of cool things, so the language can be manipulated into getting everyone to believe what all the culture warriors WANT them to believe. I dunno.
Bottom line, I made my point, and I resent my point being shot down merely because I believe in a God.
It taints the whole conversation when the politics comes into play of things, and thats whats been done here, and thats what that punkass article did. I find it disgusting. And as for that smack about me cussing and getting angry? Ive behaved on this site so far, bro.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
Fossils are evolutionary observations. DNA provides evolutionary observations.
You have an extreme bias (the opposite of objectivity), and I can respect that bias. What I do not respect is your closed mind coupled with your bragging about having an open mind and being objective.
You are being dishonest in this thread. You may disagree with me, but at least I tell you what I really believe. And when I make a statement about science, I use accurate descriptions. You seem to be making quite a bit up, and attempting to pass it off as holy writ. That tactic has no effect on me other than to make me want to walk away from the discussion, saddened by the lost conversation.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
Fair enough. I'm sorry you feel that way. (edit-) But I've made nothing up, and everything I've said so far has been without agenda. Period.
Last edited by The Diabolical Mr. Lieman; May 9th, 2008 at 07:38 PM.
just for shits and giggles, i would like to point out the fact that I am Legend has already exposed lieman as an idiot in a previous thread about religion.
i , for one, am glad to see that leiman, is, in fact, still an idiot.
cheers!:D
Oh, for Christ's sake.....
(how do ya like THAT pun?) :D
I Am Legend left the site for weeks after that, chickened the fuck out, then changed his fucking name because he was embarrassed. You fucking pussy. :o
I would be embarrassed as well. It has been ~140 years since you were allowed to own another man in this country, and quite a social stigma has developed since then...
1 Member(s) liked this post
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Excuse me if this has already been posted somewhere. While you guys go back and forth measuring each others dicks, there was an actual thread here, just joking, I just really wanted to sound like a tuff bitch for once. :p I know I am a dork forgive me....
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm
Micro and Macro Evolution
Gradualism
Throughout most of the 20th century, researchers developing the synthetic theory of evolution primarily focused on microevolution , which is slight genetic change over a few generations in a population. Until the 1970's, it was generally thought that these changes from generation to generation indicated that past species evolved gradually into other species over millions of years. This model of long term gradual change is usually referred to as gradualism or phyletic gradualism . It is essentially the 19th century Darwinian idea that species evolve slowly at a more or less steady rate. A natural consequence of this sort of macroevolution would be the slow progressive change of one species into the next in a line, as shown by the graph on the right.
Punctuated equilibrium
Beginning in the early 1970's, this model was challenged by Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, and other leading paleontologists . They asserted that there is sufficient fossil evidence to show that some species remained essentially the same for millions of years and then underwent short periods of very rapid, major change. Gould suggested that a more accurate model in such species lines would be punctuated equilibrium (illustrated by the graph on the left).
Long periods of stability and
short episodes of change
The punctuated, or rapid change periods, were presumably the result of major environmental changes in such things as predation pressure, food supply and climate. During these times, natural selection can favor varieties that were previously at a comparative disadvantage. The result can be an accelerated rate of change in gene pool frequencies in the direction of the varieties that become the most favored by the new environmental conditions. It would be expected that long severe droughts, major volcanic eruptions, and the beginning and ending of ice ages would be likely triggers for rapid evolution.
Random mutations provide variations that help a species survive. Mutations in regulator genes in particular can quickly result in radically new variations in the organization of the body and its important structures. As a consequence, changes in these genes can result in a greater likelihood that at least some individuals will have variations that will allow them to survive during times of extinction level events. In this situation, subsequent generations would be significantly changed from the generations before the period of severe natural selection. In other words, regulator genes probably play an important part in the rapid change phases of punctuated evolution.
It is now quite apparent that the evolutionary history of life on this planet is extremely complicated. Different species have evolved at different rates and those rates have changed through time in response to complex patterns of interaction with other species and other environmental factors. In addition, it is clear that most species lines have already become extinct as a result of their inability to adapt to changed conditions.
Origin of Species
Where do new species come from? That is a key question that the biological sciences have been asking for more than 200 years. Charles Darwin gave us part of the answer in his explanation of natural selection. The remainder came as a result of Gregor Mendel's experiments with basic genetic inheritance and the 20th century discoveries of the other natural processes that can cause evolution. We now know that evolution can occur in two different patterns--adaptive radiation into multiple species results in cladogenesis and successive speciation within a single evolutionary line results in anagenesis .
Adaptive radiation
resulting in cladogenesis Successive speciation
within a single species line
resulting in anagenesis
Adaptive radiation is the progressive diversification of a species into two or more species as groups adapt to different environments. Natural selection is usually the principle mechanism driving adaptive radiation. The initial step is the separation of a species into distinct breeding populations. This usually happens as a result of geographic or social isolation. Over time, the gene pools of the isolated populations diverge from each other by gradually acquiring different mutations and sometimes as a result of random genetic drift. When the populations are in dissimilar environments, environmental stresses are often not the same. As a result, nature selects for different traits existing within the gene pools of the populations. Over time, the populations genetically diverge enough so that they can no longer reproduce with each other. At this point, they have become separate species and usually continue to diverge in subsequent generations. In intermediate stages, the two newly or about to be separated species may be able to interbreed and produce children, but most of them are likely to be sterile. This is the case with the offspring of horses and donkeys--i.e., mules. Eventually, however, species genetically diverge so much that they are unable to produce any children. This is the case with sheep and cattle.
The evolution of species by successive speciation occurs within a single evolutionary line without the branching of adaptive radiation. This takes place when the members of a species consist of a single breeding population for many generations. Descendant generations experience continuous spontaneous mutations and new directions of natural selection as the environment changes. This results in progressive changes in the gene pool frequencies of the population. At any one time, all members of the population are the same species. However, as generations subsequently replace each other, the gene pool is transformed--i.e., it evolves. Eventually, the changes are great enough that if descendants could go back in time to mate with their distant ancestors, the genetic differences would prevent them from producing fertile offspring. In other words, they would be different species.
In the real world, the patterns of evolution can be very complex and changing. Both adaptive radiation and successive speciation can go on simultaneously.
Origin of Life
It may seem strange that the question of the ultimate origin of life on earth was not discussed at the beginning of this tutorial. It was an intended omission. The focus has been on the processes by which living things change through time, not on how life first came about. These are separate issues. A consideration of ultimate origins bridges into the realm of religion for many people. Regardless of whether you believe that life began spontaneously as a result of natural processes or was due to divine intervention, it is sobering to realize that science is close to being able to create life out of non-living substances. In fact, most of the initial steps have already been taken. The video linked below shows just how close we are to creating living organisms.
Artificial Life--excerpt from the PBS series Nova Science Now (October 18, 2005)
This link takes you to an external website. To return here, you must click the "back" button
on your browser program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page was last updated on Monday, October 15, 2007.
Copyright © 1997-2006 by Dennis O'Neil. All rights reserved.
Illustration credits
(clasps hand over face)
Heh?
So does that make him the stay at home husband then?
Do you really think that another man, backing slowly away from an injured, rabid beast is surrendering? The way I saw it, you were left for dead and the hunter went to a safer patch of wood.
Hell, if you keep the crazy-level up where you have been since Athena went into estrus, I'll be the next dude wandering off to a bit of greener pasture. This place has gotten crazy since you two started having phone sex, or whatever it is you kids do these days...
What a gem.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Not to divert the thread, while it is true that it has been 140 years since you were ALLOWED to own another man in this country it is still legal to own another man in this country.
Last edited by DA Devil's Advocate; May 16th, 2008 at 02:03 AM.
If I recall correctly, Mississippi did not repeal slavery until 1995. I seem to recall Michael Moore's TV Nation doing a bit on this, having a black man with a white slave in Mississippi.
For that entire period, it was not up to Mississippi to decide. It was a Federal issue, so even though one backwards State still didn't repeal their law, that doesn't mean the rule was still in effect.
Hm, actually doesn't sound too promising...
The new anti-science assault on US schools
In a disturbing trend, anti-evolution campaigners are combining with climate change deniers to undermine public education
- Sunday 12 February 2012 14.00 GMT
Charles Darwin, circa 1854: 12 February, his birthday, is marked by International Darwin Day. Photograph: Corbis
You might have thought it was all over after the 2005 decision by the US district court of Middle Pennsylvania (pdf), which ruled in the case of the Dover Area schools that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional. You might have guessed that they wouldn't come back after the 1987 US supreme court decision in Edwards v Aguillard, which deemed the teaching of creationism in Louisiana schools unconstitutional. Or maybe you figured that the opponents of evolution had their Waterloo in the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial in Tennessee.
They are back. There are six bills aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution before state legislatures this year: two each in New Hampshire and Missouri, one each in Indiana and Oklahoma. And it's only February.
For the most part, the authors of these bills are singing a song we've heard before. Jerry Bergevin, the Republican sponsor of one of the New Hampshire bills, says of evolution that "It's a worldview and it's godless." He blames the teaching of evolution for Nazism and Columbine. Josh Brecheen, the sponsor of the Oklahoma bill, wants to stop the teaching of "the religion of evolution." These legislators, and their colleagues in Missouri and Indiana, trot out the hoary line that evolution is "just a theory" and that real science means saying that every point of view is just as good as any other.
Source and more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ult-us-schools
And this:
The Republicans are now the anti-science party
On climate change and evolution, the party's presidential hopefuls are wilfully ignorant
Jon Huntsman Jr, a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn't a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that's too bad, because Mr Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the Republican party in the United States, namely, that it is becoming the "anti-science party". This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.
To see what Mr Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the Republican nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.
Read more here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cans-president
And last but not least:
The USA: World Leader In Anti-Science...
Seeded on Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:01 PM EST
...leading the race into a new scientific dark age.
Most scientists, on achieving high office, keep their public remarks to the bland and reassuring. Last week Nina Fedoroff, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), broke ranks in a spectacular manner.
She confessed that she was now "scared to death" by the anti-science movement that was spreading, uncontrolled, across the US and the rest of the western world.
"We are sliding back into a dark era," she said. "And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms."
The rest of the story: http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/201...n-anti-science
Not too good indeed...
Every hero becomes a bore at last.
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Man, they wiped out the lizards that were there first completely! That is sad :(
Dear Mommy...I see you smile down there below...are those tears of joy you show? I'm glad you're happy, although you lied...I'd love to be right by your side...but by your choice, I view from above...tell my Grandparents I send my love...it's Beautiful here, is all I can say...your life will go on... without me in your way. Love Caylee XOXO......
NO JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE - copyright that!
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
Because of the surprising rate of adaption (evolution), introduction of non native species is nothing but trouble.
Sheevaa: I can understand...I got peed on for the first time and got all excited about it:P
DamagedGoods: mm... my meat smells damned tasty, it's a shame I've got another few hours to wait for it.
newstarshipsmell :Sorry, DG, but the Laerma nuts only grow on trees on the world of Dezoris in the Algol star system so unless you have a spaceship...
[SIGPIC]http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee314/fishincage/DD/cactuscatsm.png[/SIGPIC]
1 Member(s) liked this post
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks