Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[Denny]

It's not like it was all written at once. If gospels written several hundred years apart make up the book what's wrong with adding a new gospel now?

If you've read it, you'll know. Everything we need is already in there.

[Hobie]

the bible has been rewritten and altered more then any book in history, but I think science would negate the need for faith, so no I cant see something like that happening.

I guess that's what happened to me.

I would always ask questions in Sunday School that couldn't be answered to my satisfaction. My mother pulled me aside when I was 11 or so telling me to knock that shit off because I was embarrassing her. That was the beginning of the end, lol.

[Denny]

I guess that's what happened to me.

I would always ask questions in Sunday School that couldn't be answered to my satisfaction. My mother pulled me aside when I was 11 or so telling me to knock that shit off because I was embarrassing her. That was the beginning of the end, lol.

How sad. Sorry, bro.

[Maddhattter]

Sorry for the terribly long post, I've been moving all weekend and have been without internet on my computer and have no desire to attempt to write out thorough responses from my phone. So, without further introduction....

And who are you again? You say "in the past" like you've been around for more than 107 posts.

So, you’re person number two who has implied that post count means anything whatsoever. Also, I never said “in the past”. I said “past few posts”, which is very different and doesn’t require me to have been around more than 107 posts, as my post was only post #87 in the thread.

So, even though you started your post on the wrong foot, by both being wrong and attempting to make an irrelevant point, I’ll still handle the whole post.

You don't have to tell me how peer review works, I'm well aware of it.

It doesn’t appear so, based on your past few posts. If you did understand how the peer review process worked, you’d know that science doesn’t care what you believe, only what you can prove and the peer review process is put into place so that you can’t claim something to be true only because you believe it.

But its clear to me from your post that you have little real world experience with modern academia.

Not terribly sure how anything is clear when you can’t even remain consistent with your posts, but there will be more on that later.

Before you get all bent out of shape, no I'm not saying that you didn't go to college. Two totally different subjects.

Why would I get bent out of shape? You saying anything about my experiences does nothing to help or hinder your points or impact my present or future.

Before you get all bent out of shape; no, I’m not saying that you claimed that you could impact my present or future.

As for sources... LOL. I don't know what to say. Have you NO exposure to the real world at all? I guess you haven't heard, but there is such a thing as "common knowledge". Let me give you an example.

Wow!! Please, explain to me this concept you call “common knowledge”. Especially since I can trust that you won’t pull some false analogy about how something that can easily be sourced, and logically follows is equal to something that is a whole lot of personal experiences. Surely you’d know that personal experience has absolutely no weight in science.

Its "common knowledge" that you should look both ways before crossing the street.

Yep, a easily sourced claim, that you should provide sources for, as you’ve given no reason to think that you’re any kind of an authority on anything.

Now I'm sure you'll want a source, but I'd submit that if you don't believe me, you should try it for yourself.

Yup, source wanted.

Submission noted.

Submission denied due to lack of any reason to believe that you would know the difference between a valid source and an invalid one. So, without a valid source, there is no reason to believe you. There is also the problem with the appeal to popularity. Just because it may be “common knowledge”, there is no reason to assume that it should be taken seriously. Thanks to religion, it used to be common knowledge when you were sick that you were possessed by a demon. You don’t think that is true, do you? After all, it was “common knowledge” and some people still believe it. Just ask BrianC.

I do have to say that your train of thought seems to be leading to…

Like crossing the street, its common knowledge that some physical evidence for ghosts and there is some evidence for UFO's.

Oh, I guess I got my hopes up. I was expecting a valid analogy, if one was going to be given.

If this were “common knowledge”:

1. Supporting your claim with actual evidence or valid sources should be no problem.
2. There would be no “bias in the face of physical evidence” as scientists would just know that said evidence exists.

Now, there is some physical evidence you could claim support the ghost hypothesis, but never in history has the supernatural been found to be credible when tested by science. But, since you don’t use any specific examples, your claim is too vague to be considered valid.

The main problem with the above is you’re putting the cart before the horse. To claim that ghosts did anything, you must first show that they exist, as “Ghost” is a very clearly defined term.

I’m not touching the UFO issue, as anything that is flying, and someone cannot identify, is a UFO by definition. As I can’t identify every aircraft in the US arsenal, many of them would be UFOs to me. That’s without taking into consideration that a UFO is, by definition, unidentified. So, if it is an extraterrestrial craft, we don’t even know what kind of evidence it would even be capable of leaving behind, rendering the argument for evidence of extraterrestrial visitation invalid.

Now, whether you want to admit that is on you.

Admit what? You’ve failed to demonstrate anything other than an appeal to popularity, propensity for being vague to attempt to push a claim and that you don’t source your claims. Though, I don’t know if the last one counts, as the only reason given for your lack of sources is your appeal to popularity.

Your creationists theory is lost on me though.

I don’t have, nor is there, a scientific creationist theory, as science does not claim that anything happened by magic. So, it would make perfect sense for anyone to be lost on it.

I couldn't care less what some people will do to "want" to believe in a creator.

Irrelevant, as that was not directed at you and it was also clearly stated as what I find funny.

Until I see scientific evidence either way, I'm afraid even your beloved theory of evolution is a crap shoot imo.

As scientific studies have been posted, it wouldn’t take much to find said evidence or, at the very least, find the steps taken in the experiment so that you can test their conclusion yourself. That’s the joy of science; both of our opinions are irrelevant on the issue.

But, since you don’t seem to be inclined to do any work on your own, I’ll just let you see the work that’s already been done, explained in terms a high school graduate should be able to understand.

http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/content/class-sessions

I’ll warn you, though. There just might be science involved.

The theory of evolution would be better called the theory of adaptation.

Actually, considering the definition of the word, it’s named just fine.

evo•lu•tion
noun \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Definition of EVOLUTION

1: one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH(2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advanced : something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5: the extraction of a mathematical root
6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

Species can adapt, to try and ensure the survival over the long haul. Of course even to the extent of making seemingly drastic changes to their physiology.

Not exactly. The adaptation is not something they “try”. It’s a difference that can occur by any number of methods that allows them to reproduce with a higher efficiency than its competition.

But there is zero evidence anywhere in the world to suggest that every living thing on the planet is descendent from some single celled organism or strain of amino acids and proteins that somehow magically "formed" in some kind of primordial soup.

Agreed. Science hasn’t posited anything happening by magic, and evolution makes a valid assumption in regards to life. The theory of evolution assumes that life started. As life exists, there is no reason to assume that it didn’t start.

Evolution doesn’t, however, make any claim at all on how life started. That would be the study of bio-genesis.

Unfortunately, its become every bit as much of a religion to some, as actual religion is to others.

Again, an unsupported assertion on your part. Evolution cannot be a religion as it has no dogma to uphold, worships no god or supernatural entities or powers, nor requires any faith. It’s a scientific theory and science has or does none of the above.

[Maddhattter]

You are so full of crap I can smell it from here. I guess I missed where the big bang theory turned into the big bang fact.

When theory is used as it’s defined, within the context of science, it is a fact. Your refusal to use the word as defined in the context of science when discussing science is most likely the reason that you “missed where the big bang theory turned into the big bang fact” or when any theory became fact.

That small point of matter that is expanding....where did it come from? You don't know.

You’re right. Science doesn’t know. Religion doesn’t know either, at least not demonstrably. Science just has the intellectual honesty to admit it.

That is where faith comes in.

Wrong, as faith is devoid of evidence. You know this, because you’ve been shown the definitions, and how they relate. I guess dishonesty is something that should just be expected from you at this point.

The evidence supports the “Big Bang” theory, hence it being a theory, scientifically. The “Big Bang” theory doesn’t have to know where the matter came from, as the matter exists now. There is no leap of faith to assume that matter came into existence. It’s a similar concept as the issue of evolution. It requires no faith that life started as life is here. That doesn’t mean that anyone knows how life started, but evolution doesn’t cover that.

You saying there is absolutely no proof of creationism just shows you are ignorant.

No, science cannot prove the supernatural. It’s a little problem with any of the 6 day creation models, and most of the intelligent design models.

Again, I guess the 5 billion people who believe in God must be wrong and you must be right.

Appeals to popularity do nothing to support your claim when the vast majority of the 5 billion people you claim are not qualified to speak on the topic with any legitimate authority. Like the sources you cited in the Theology Corner.

I am so glad the world has you to bring us out of the darkness into the light...believing some matter that came from...well somewhere...and formed goo that eventually evolved into human beings is way more rational than a Supreme Being created everything.

Given that historically, the naturalistic hypothesis’ have always been found to be accurate, while the supernatural claims have been shown to be untrue, you’re right. It is more rational to believe that “believing some matter that came from...well somewhere...and formed goo that eventually evolved into human beings’ via naturalistic means, than to believe that “a Supreme Being” magiced everything into existence.

http://184.154.224.5/~creatio1/index...ask=view&id=36

HOLY CRAP! You come bearing even more people who are not qualified to talk about the issues they are discussing?!

Wait, no… That’s been par for the course from you.

However, to be fair:
1. John Woodmorappe is an author without the confidence in his “non-conventional” science practices to use his actual name, or background details to demonstrate himself to be an authority. In his paper, he uses a vast amount of rhetoric and highly inflammatory comments not found in legitimate scientific journals. Sorry, Creation Research Society Quarterly is not a legitimate scientific journal. Also, in his paper, he never spends more than a few sentences doing anything more than asserting any of his claims and quote mining the documents that he is “refuting”.

For a reference who uses actual science, you can check out Dr. Kevin R. Henke who has a Ph.D in geology. You know, someone who can reasonably be considered an authority on the subject.

2. Nils Heribert-Nilsson quotes are more than fifty years old and the man was in his 70s when he wrote the book quoted. Science has progressed a little in the last fifty years, not to mention that he personally subscribed to a lot of both outrageous and outdated ideas, like the idea that enzymes are genes.

So, given that the first two sources cited by the website you posted are crap, there is no reason to progress, as it is safe to assume that the rest are crap.

[Maddhattter]

Theory = Fact/Law and he will not explain it in detail.

You seem to be determined to either parade your ignorance at best, or be blatantly dishonest at worst. Racrguy has not claimed that Theory=Law. However, science agrees with what he is saying, that Theory=Fact. So, once again, science disagrees with you.

Scientific Theory: A well tested concept that explains a wide range/lots of observations.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Your misrepresentation of the definition of scientific theory and of Racrguy’s statements does not bode well for your claims of being “well researched” compared to other theists.

In fact, he'll make a half-assed intellipost only on the coat tails of someone else.

[Sarcasm]Yep. It’s only half-assed intelliposting when you properly cite your sources and to use valid sources.[/Sarcasm]

If that’s not the way you do research, there is no good reason to even have a discussion with you as you don’t properly do research then demand that you are right.

If you don't like it, you can excuse yourself from the conversation.

I don’t agree with dismissing someone as quickly as he does, but extrapolating your research practices by looking at your criticisms of his research practices, I’d have to agree with Racrguy in your case.

By the way, you're uneducated. Now that that is said, nothing you say is valid.

racrguy wins again!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111oneonejuan11!!

Considering Stephens display of the inability to check his sources, circular logic and blatant dishonesty, there is no reason to believe this is not true.

[Maddhattter]

You have the exact same amount of evidence that he has lol. That's what you can't get through your head. You have evidence that species can adapt and literally change form over time to better suit their environment.

That is called Evolution. So, by your own admission, Racrguy has more evidence than Denny, as Denny has demonstrated none.

Nothing more. Prove otherwise.

Considering the topic is evolution, and you agreed that it happens, there is nothing more that needs to be proven.

Your theory of "creation" has the exact same credibility, scientifically, as his theory of creation. Its just sad that you'll never see that. And thats an awful baby you have in your sig.

Reading his posts, he has put forward no “creation” theory.

However, given that every time throughout history, the supernatural option has been shown to be untrue, any naturalistic hypothesis is more credible and rational than a supernatural one. It would be outright irrational to bank on an option that has never been proven to be accurate in anything.

Yes. I did just state that the Raliens creation hypothesis, as I understand it, i.e. aliens created us and the biosphere for us, is more credible than the 6 day creation hypothesis, as it requires no supernatural claims.

[Denny]

You seem to be determined to either parade your ignorance at best, or be blatantly dishonest at worst. Racrguy has not claimed that Theory=Law. However, science agrees with what he is saying, that Theory=Fact. So, once again, science disagrees with you.

Scientific Theory: A well tested concept that explains a wide range/lots of observations.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Your misrepresentation of the definition of scientific theory and of Racrguy’s statements does not bode well for your claims of being “well researched” compared to other theists.

ACCEPTED to be true, not true.

They are verifying the hypotheses, but it still doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. Several valid hypotheses can be correct and valid, but it doesn't have to mean that they can mean that Hyp A plus Hyp B and Hyp C means conclusion D.

[Sarcasm]Yep. It’s only half-assed intelliposting when you properly cite your sources and to use valid sources.[/Sarcasm]

If that’s not the way you do research, there is no good reason to even have a discussion with you as you don’t properly do research then demand that you are right.

Utilizing various sources to make YOUR point is one thing, just regurgitating info is another.

I don’t agree with dismissing someone as quickly as he does, but extrapolating your research practices by looking at your criticisms of his research practices, I’d have to agree with Racrguy in your case.

He'd fail any course on the grounds of his lack of personal input with "research practices" like that.

Considering Stephens display of the inability to check his sources, circular logic and blatant dishonesty, there is no reason to believe this is not true.

I can't be quick to bark out "blatant dishonesty," but if you can, I'll let Stephen address that one.

[Maddhattter]

ACCEPTED to be true, not true.

Accepted to be true is as close to true as science will ever concede anything.

They are verifying the hypotheses, but it still doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. Several valid hypotheses can be correct and valid, but it doesn't have to mean that they can mean that Hyp A plus Hyp B and Hyp C means conclusion D.

Please give an example where science has several valid hypotheses that are correct and valid and there is a scientific theory on the subject. If it exists, I've never seen it.

Utilizing various sources to make YOUR point is one thing, just regurgitating info is another.

He made a claim, and provided valid sources to back up his claim. That's how you show that something is correct when you're not an authority on the subject. He did exactly as he should be doing. That's how research works. Not looking at what actual experts are saying and going "Oh, I don't agree with that, so it must be wrong", which is what the 6 day creationists/Intelligent Design camp does on a regular basis.

He'd fail any course on the grounds of his lack of personal input with "research practices" like that.

Not when performing research on science, as science doesn't give a shit about anyone's personal input. It's all about facts. So, no personal input is required.

You, on the other hand, have a habit of asserting what you believe as fact with no supporting evidence, and yet still claim to be "researched" on the matter. Then you ridicule someone else over citing sources? It's doesn't follow that you think that citing proper sources is worthy of ridicule, personal input is required for science and are well researched in anything.

I can't be quick to bark out "blatant dishonesty," but if you can, I'll let Stephen address that one.

I'm not barking out "blatant dishonesty", nor am I doing it quickly. Based on Stephens statements and responses in this and the "What makes the bible true" thread demonstrates it.

[Maddhattter]

ACCEPTED to be true, not true.

Before you try to pull the "it's not a law" crap again, you've been informed that Scientific Law is defined as...

A scientific theory that has been tested many times and is generally accepted as true. It is a statement about events that always occur in nature.

http://www.unit5.org/villhauer/Glossary/Glossary.htm

Just wanted to reiterate what even high school graduates are expected to understand.

[mustangguy289]

So does the theory of evolution discredit any form of a Higher Being.. AKA God?

[Maddhattter]

So does the theory of evolution discredit any form of a Higher Being.. AKA God?

No. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. There are many denominations of christianity and other religions that accept their particular supernatural claim and evolution.

[mustangguy289]

No. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. There are many denominations of christianity and other religions that accept their particular supernatural claim and evolution.

Can one believe in certain parts of the evolution theory and not in others?

[Maddhattter]

Can one believe in certain parts of the evolution theory and not in others?

One can believe whatever they want and need no permission from anyone to do so.

That doesn't mean one has any claim to truth, unless it can be demonstrated. Evolution has been demonstrated, in a great many ways. What hasn't been demonstrated is not included in the theory, so I don't see the reasoning behind believing in certain parts of the evolutionary theory and not in others.

[Forever_frost]

It's not like it was all written at once. If gospels written several hundred years apart make up the book what's wrong with adding a new gospel now?

Revelation is very clear on this. Adding to it adds the plagues of the Bible to you, taking away from it removes your name from the Book of Life. Pretty simple