Jim in Anchorage Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Again with the global warming rant...lol The rest is retarded in many ways. Guess you showed me. Again, WHO is proposing the banning the teaching of evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) No. I what to know what the point of this thread is. That we are falling behind the world in science because some school in Kansas wants intelligent design taught? Exactly. Those redneck hillbilly midwesterners and their religiousity are the reason that Uhmerika is falling behind. Why can't they accept the same education in more civilized parts of the country Edited April 18, 2012 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Guess you showed me. Again, WHO is proposing the banning the teaching of evolution? Whatever dude, I'm trying to engage in an intelligent discussion, not win a fight. Several states have tried to pass legislation over the years which subtly undermines the science of evolution by mandating "equal time" for other theories or the outright teaching of creationism as an alternative. Both of these things turn out to be dogmatic crap as far as fact-based science education goes, and thankfully, as far as most courts are concerned. Some recent anti-evolution "Academic Freedom" bills from our recent past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Freedom_bills Exactly. Those redneck hillbilly midwesterners and their religiousity are the reason that Uhmerika is falling behind. Why can't they accept the same education in more civilized parts of the country Los Angeles represents a more civilized/educated part of the country? If you fail to make the connection between the restricting or perverting of the teaching of "undesirable science" in our classrooms and the lack of quality scientific minds this country puts out, well Jebus help us all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Whatever dude, I'm trying to engage in an intelligent discussion, not win a fight. Yes, your dismissing of my post as "retarded" clearly is part of a intellgent discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Los Angeles represents a more civilized/educated part of the country? Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and on one of the coasts vs flyover country If you fail to make the connection between the restricting or perverting of the teaching of "undesirable science" in our classrooms and the lack of quality scientific minds this country puts out, well Jebus help us all... I never said one way or the other. You're the one associating religion with Uhmerika falling behind I raised another possibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and on one of the coasts vs flyover country I never said one way or the other. You're the one associating religion with Uhmerika falling behind I raised another possibility I look at the areas which have recently tried to pass anti-science legislation and draw my own conclusions based on that. I agree that there are many factors other than curriculum causing science education to fall behind in our country, but I favor an approach that at least offers our students a chance to learn science-based science. You simply cited a proposed lowering of education standards in LA as a reaction to fear of mass dropouts. While that does not seem like a good solution at all, it is really an entirely different issue altogether. Yes, your dismissing of my post as "retarded" clearly is part of a intellgent discussion. I blame the public schools for my lack of proper debate skills. Their bad. Edited April 18, 2012 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I look at the areas which have recently tried to pass anti-science legislation and draw my own conclusions based on that. I agree that there are many factors other than curriculum causing science education to fall behind in our country, but I favor an approach that at least offers our students a chance to learn science-based science. You simply cited a proposed lowering of education standards in LA as a reaction to fear of mass dropouts. While that does not seem like a good solution at all, it is really an entirely different issue altogether. I blame the public schools for my lack of proper debate skills. Their bad. I blame it on a lack of religious training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I blame it on a lack of too much religious training. Fixed it for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Some thoughts to ponder If we concede that this board is representative of a cross section of the male population then: Can anyone say that Intelligent Design is the cause for our creation? Think of DiN, Conner, BFBF, lyrbob and BillsFan-4-Ever. Knowing the strength of the rebuttal examples can anyone have the balls here to attempt supporting the idea of Intelligent Design? On the other hand, how can we support the Theory of Evolution, when by its very nature evolution lends itself to continued improvement and refinement? If we have had all of these many, many thousands of years to evolve, how do we still have examples like the ones that were mentioned under the Intelligent Design conundrum? Assuming that in real life they don't look like cavemen and probably their only "tell" is their pocket protectors, we can't even stretch things and propose dual evolution. It will be interesting to see the boards take on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Some thoughts to ponder If we concede that this board is representative of a cross section of the male population then: Can anyone say that Intelligent Design is the cause for our creation? Think of DiN, Conner, BFBF, lyrbob and BillsFan-4-Ever. Knowing the strength of the rebuttal examples can anyone have the balls here to attempt supporting the idea of Intelligent Design? On the other hand, how can we support the Theory of Evolution, when by its very nature evolution lends itself to continued improvement and refinement? If we have had all of these many, many thousands of years to evolve, how do we still have examples like the ones that were mentioned under the Intelligent Design conundrum? Assuming that in real life they don't look like cavemen and probably their only "tell" is their pocket protectors, we can't even stretch things and propose dual evolution. It will be interesting to see the boards take on this. Random mutations. Or recessive genes that beat the odds and met their match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Random mutations. Or recessive genes that beat the odds and met their match. You know it's your job here to cull the herd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Some thoughts to ponder If we concede that this board is representative of a cross section of the male population then: Can anyone say that Intelligent Design is the cause for our creation? Think of DiN, Conner, BFBF, lyrbob and BillsFan-4-Ever. Knowing the strength of the rebuttal examples can anyone have the balls here to attempt supporting the idea of Intelligent Design? On the other hand, how can we support the Theory of Evolution, when by its very nature evolution lends itself to continued improvement and refinement? If we have had all of these many, many thousands of years to evolve, how do we still have examples like the ones that were mentioned under the Intelligent Design conundrum? Assuming that in real life they don't look like cavemen and probably their only "tell" is their pocket protectors, we can't even stretch things and propose dual evolution. It will be interesting to see the boards take on this. Sometimes intelligent design means designing someone to be an example to others. More to the point, if humans were intelligently design...where's the intelligence in a design that runs a waste treatment facility through a recreational zone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Sometimes intelligent design means designing someone to be an example to others. More to the point, if humans were intelligently design...where's the intelligence in a design that runs a waste treatment facility through a recreational zone? Washington DC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) Sometimes intelligent design means designing someone to be an example to others. More to the point, if humans were intelligently design...where's the intelligence in a design that runs a waste treatment facility through a recreational zone? To accomodate those that wear a sweater vest? Looks like dual purpose, so what's wrong with efficiency? Edited April 19, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Some thoughts to ponder If we concede that this board is representative of a cross section of the male population then: Can anyone say that Intelligent Design is the cause for our creation? Think of DiN, Conner, BFBF, lyrbob and BillsFan-4-Ever. Knowing the strength of the rebuttal examples can anyone have the balls here to attempt supporting the idea of Intelligent Design? On the other hand, how can we support the Theory of Evolution, when by its very nature evolution lends itself to continued improvement and refinement? If we have had all of these many, many thousands of years to evolve, how do we still have examples like the ones that were mentioned under the Intelligent Design conundrum? Assuming that in real life they don't look like cavemen and probably their only "tell" is their pocket protectors, we can't even stretch things and propose dual evolution. It will be interesting to see the boards take on this. Ok, I'll bite. What you said above is true, but it's the same reason that there is not ONE single superior lifeform on Earth. Less evolved life forms don't simply cease to exist (unless they remove themselves, duh huh) which is why we still have fish, frogs and rednecks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Ok, I'll bite. What you said above is true, but it's the same reason that there is not ONE single superior lifeform on Earth. Less evolved life forms don't simply cease to exist (unless they remove themselves, duh huh) which is why we still have fish, frogs and rednecks... That also represents a misunderstanding of evolution - it's not change from "lower" to "higher" life forms as much as it is change to increased suitability to a given environment. Saying a frog is a "lower" life form is somewhat misleading...I'd like to see you live in a pond and catch flies with your tongue as successfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 That also represents a misunderstanding of evolution - it's not change from "lower" to "higher" life forms as much as it is change to increased suitability to a given environment. Saying a frog is a "lower" life form is somewhat misleading...I'd like to see you live in a pond and catch flies with your tongue as successfully. Tom, I'm used to discussing such things in simplified terms for the masses. I'm sure you can relate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Ok, I'll bite. What you said above is true, but it's the same reason that there is not ONE single superior lifeform on Earth. Less evolved life forms don't simply cease to exist (unless they remove themselves, duh huh) which is why we still have fish, frogs and rednecks... I'm talking about the differences within what I would loosely call the same species. Not a group from the Amazon that has been cut off from the rest of the world, but specific subjects capable enough to type on a keyboard, but obviously not meeting the standard for "Intelligent" Design and not evolving at the level of the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Tom, I'm used to discussing such things in simplified terms for the masses. I'm sure you can relate. I wasn't saying YOU misunderstood, you know. I understood your oversimplification for 3rd's benefit (note: he still didn't get it). But it's also one of those cases where the oversimplification does a disservice..."intelligent design", by definition, requires the belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster design some organisms to be "better" or "worse" (because what's the purpose of design, really?) Expressing evolution in the same terms puts it on a similar non-scientific footing, and lets the ID-ers think their "theory" has some sort of basis in reality, because "How does random chance cause 'better' and 'worse'? Your Darwinian Theory is as much an article of faith as my Flying Spaghetti Monster." The truth - that so few understand - is that evolution makes no such judgement. MRSA is in no way "better" than a regular staph A. bug, it's just better suited to surviving in a particular ecological niche. I'm talking about the differences within what I would loosely call the same species. Not a group from the Amazon that has been cut off from the rest of the world, but specific subjects capable enough to type on a keyboard, but obviously not meeting the standard for "Intelligent" Design and not evolving at the level of the norm. They've evolved to fill a particular ecological niche. Which, again, could simply be to serve as an example to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I wasn't saying YOU misunderstood, you know. I understood your oversimplification for 3rd's benefit (note: he still didn't get it). But it's also one of those cases where the oversimplification does a disservice..."intelligent design", by definition, requires the belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster design some organisms to be "better" or "worse" (because what's the purpose of design, really?) Expressing evolution in the same terms puts it on a similar non-scientific footing, and lets the ID-ers think their "theory" has some sort of basis in reality, because "How does random chance cause 'better' and 'worse'? Your Darwinian Theory is as much an article of faith as my Flying Spaghetti Monster." The truth - that so few understand - is that evolution makes no such judgement. MRSA is in no way "better" than a regular staph A. bug, it's just better suited to surviving in a particular ecological niche. They've evolved to fill a particular ecological niche. Which, again, could simply be to serve as an example to others. I totally believe in the FSM! All hail the FSM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts