Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[Maddhattter]

That is, by far, the biggest effort to beat around my post that I've EVER seen!

No, it’s not. There was no real effort involved. That’s the joy of having the evidence on my side.

At what point is there anything NOT true?

By definition, anything that is not true.

Again, you're automatically placing all of it on the "untrue" shel to start with.

Agreed. That is where everything starts, or everything would have to be believed until it could be disproven. It’s called the null hypothesis. Disbelief is the default stance.

At what point do I take anything out of context? I think I adequately addressed the reasoning for why I can see that it MIGHT not be 6 consecutive days, for argument's sake.

It’s not that you take it out of context, you blatantly admit to changing the definitions on words when there is no indication that they meant anything other than what they said. It’s not a contextual issue, it’s outright redefining words.

It is ovbious that there are MANY that don't need scientific evidence to either make or accept truth claims.

Appeals to popularity carry no weight. Even if everyone claimed something to be true without evidence, then everyone would still be wrong as they wouldn’t be able to show that they have a truth.

The only time it poses to be a problem is with people demanding the scientific evidence. You know, like the part of my post that you skipped around?

Oh, yea. You mean the part that I didn’t skip because it was irrelevant? I remember that part. It’s where you made a bunch of unsupported assertions and I stated

Ok, so this is what you believe. There’s no evidence to back up your claim that:

1. Moses meant anything other than exactly what he said.
2. That a god/gods had any hand in the process.

Just because something isn’t excluded explicitly, doesn’t make it scientifically valid, as science requires evidence to support your claim. Again, I don’t care what you believe, it’s when you make truth claims that the problem arises. You cannot determine truth without evidence.

That’s right. I didn’t skip it. I addressed it.

Who said I made a scientific theory?

No one, because you didn’t.

I associated what was written with scientific claims? Are you seriously not smarter than this or is this your best attempt to sound like you're saying something intelligent without actually doing so? (BTW, I bet some people will actually be fooled by your dancing)

There has been no dancing. You have repeatedly made appeals to popularity to imply validity in your claim. There was no reason to assume that that was not your attempt this time.

I love the "close to truth" shit. It give you a little out when needed. LOL

I know. The way stuff actually works is always convenient, isn’t it?

I'll just wait until someone else posts and addresses it then. Thanks for taking up some more time.

All your points were addressed. You made unsupported claims, and then offered more unsupported claims. So, if I didn’t address something, it’s because you brought nothing to the table.

[stephen4785]

-Evolution as inferred from the fossil record is not even a theory. Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Evolution is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea.

-Yes, I know that the physicists insist that the 2LOT is only about heat transfer, but in chemical contexts it is acceptable to express it in terms of entropy. And entropy changes imply changes in randomness, which implies an inherent direction that a process will take (without outside intervention). I don't see how one can divorce the implications from the law.

-Once again the only answers I get is telling me I'm wrong. Well, PROVE IT. You call me a liar? PROVE ME WRONG. If your ideas could be proved then there would not be this discussion.

I give you evidence and you have no refute except to call me ignorant and a liar (Very scientific). You say I have unsupported assertion's and when I give you them you say they are not valid. It's like arguing with a wall.

And of course we know that science is never wrong...flat Earth hypothesis, Phlogiston theory, Geocentric theory of the solar system, Newton's corpuscular theory of light.

So, defend your position with valid scientific arguments...

[Denny]

If that was your best attempt to address it, I'll just wait to hear from someone who is serious about it.

[mustangguy289]

Just like the days of our lives.....

[exlude]

-Evolution as inferred from the fossil record is not even a theory. Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Evolution is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea.

Well, first, the fossil record is not the only evidence to evolution. For example, observed instances of speciation are about the best evidence for evolution we have. Second, saying that the fossil record is untestable is another misconception. Can we not already date the fossil records through several different means?

-Yes, I know that the physicists insist that the 2LOT is only about heat transfer, but in chemical contexts it is acceptable to express it in terms of entropy. And entropy changes imply changes in randomness, which implies an inherent direction that a process will take (without outside intervention). I don't see how one can divorce the implications from the law.

-Once again the only answers I get is telling me I'm wrong. Well, PROVE IT. You call me a liar? PROVE ME WRONG. If your ideas could be proved then there would not be this discussion.

I've already proven this wrong. The "2LOT" explicitly states that it applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS. Life is very obviously not a closed system.

Not only that, but your misinterpretation of the 2LOT would lead us to believe that we could not find order anywhere in nature. If that's true then why do proteins shape and behave so predictably? Why do snowflakes have very ordered structures?

I give you evidence and you have no refute except to call me ignorant and a liar (Very scientific). You say I have unsupported assertion's and when I give you them you say they are not valid. It's like arguing with a wall.

When I give you very specific reasons why things won't work (for example, applying the 2LOT to living/open systems) and you simply ignore them and I must restate myself, who do you thinks feels like they are arguing with a wall?

And of course we know that science is never wrong...flat Earth hypothesis, Phlogiston theory, Geocentric theory of the solar system, Newton's corpuscular theory of light.

So, defend your position with valid scientific arguments...

Difference being, science is designed to self correct and become more true over time. Seeing as how the religious side already has the conclusion and all evidence must be described/spun to fit that conclusion, it's hard to say that truth is the desired endstate.

[exlude]

See, this is the main reason why neither of us will see eye to eye on this. You base your BELIEF on these hypotheses to come to a stretch of a conclusion. My BELIEF is based on faith.

It is funny, though; the last time there was a discussion on this I brought up how the biblical order of creation was right in line with science, but I don't remember if it was ever addressed by anyone else. I may have to go find it (thinking it was in Canada somewhere). But for arguement's sake, I can post it up again. If we can verify "Moses' hypotheses" (if we need to refer it as such for this scenario) through "scientific fact," then can we conclude that he is right?

You know, I had to let this post sit in the back of my head for a day before responding. That's because, mostly, I don't disagree with it directly. My main issue is that the Bible just isn't specific enough. And while you have some very good interpretations and ideas, it's near impossible to conclude on whether or not that is what the author meant. For the same reason, I hated high-school literature classes.

Just use "day" to mean a length of time, since my personal BELIEF is more in line with the "day-period" theory. It could also not necessarily mean consecutive days, again it doesn't say for sure.

Order of Creation:
Genesis 1:1 was before the first day. It states "in the beginning." If you look at the wording, the heavens and the earth were already created. Now, what happened before that, I don't know, but I'm not going to say "millions and billions of years ago, this was here and this was happening." since I have nothing to back those claims up. If you look carefully, though, verse 1:2 talks about the earth being formless AND it was covered with deep waters.

Could there have been something prior to "Day 1" of Creation on earth? Could the earth had some sort of thriving life before "this" Creation? How far back was "In the beginning?" He flooded the earth during Noah's day. He said it would be the last time, but was it the first? I take every word of the Bible as having a specific meaning. Ya, it has been butchered and re-translated several times over, but I also belive that He got His Word to me in a specific way for a specific reason.

OK, so we have the heavens and a water-filled earth to bring us to Day 1. Now, as most things that I've read pertaining to scientific order of events, this hunk of rock started life out in water as well, so I'm still cool here.

Day 1- God made light upon the earth and separated it from darkness.

OK, since I have said that I believe that the heavens and earth were already around at this point, then the sun was already doing its thing, BUT no light shown on the earth yet. Now, science has stated that the earth could have started off with a heavy layer of gasous clouds and water vapor (possibly blocking any sunlight?). So, I'm still cool, y'all.

Day 2- The separation of the midst of waters from waters and the accumulation of land.

So, with the heavy gases and water vapors parting to allow sunlight, it allows water to collect in the form of seas, making room for land (getting that whole evaporation, condensation, precipitation thingy-muh-gig going). That process would be needed to start any sustainment of life on earth, scientifically speaking, of course.

Day 3- Vegetation, plantlife, seeding, etc.

Now, I'm no scientist, but I reckon that one of dem edumucated fellers in dem big schools would agree that the vegetation came before the chicken and the egg, so I think we still cool, here.

Day 4- Separation of the light from the night and order of sun, moon and stars.

This gets a little tricky, as I'm merely just a simpleton, trying to understand the Creator of everything. I believe that the solar system (even galaxy, for that matter) finally aligned itself into the order and positioning (timing) we have today. Notice that now living creatures were named yet, so who knows what went on when it was just plantlife... but then again, this is just what I gather from reading the Bible.

Day 5- Sea creatures and birds.

From just plants and vegetation to sea creatures and birds perfectly describes the transition of the Cretaceous and Tertiary eras. Am I still correct, here? If so, that's about right in order with science as well, so we're still cool.

I really don't have any argument against any of this. As it is the commonly accepted order of events and has been for a long, long time. But we are making a mountain out of a mole hill here in terms of explicit text. There is just so much it doesn't say that it makes it hard to include the Bible in the discussion of evolution. Although, using scientific knowledge is a certainly interesting way to fill in the blanks, imo.

Day 6- All the other "beasts of the earth" and LASTLY, man.

While that kinda loses the other orders of eras in a vague generality, it doesn't go against anything scientifically stated either, especially man being a very young creation, compared to everything else.

I don't think that this necessarily goes against any evolution theory. The Genesis creation story only covers the first "days", whatever those time periods may mean. It simply doesn't say that an organism could not evolve after man. And the whole building man of clay and breathing life into him could correlate some (albeit rudimentary) evolution story. That may be a stretch though.

[racrguy]

-Evolution as inferred from the fossil record is not even a theory. Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Evolution is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea.

-Yes, I know that the physicists insist that the 2LOT is only about heat transfer, but in chemical contexts it is acceptable to express it in terms of entropy. And entropy changes imply changes in randomness, which implies an inherent direction that a process will take (without outside intervention). I don't see how one can divorce the implications from the law.

-Once again the only answers I get is telling me I'm wrong. Well, PROVE IT. You call me a liar? PROVE ME WRONG. If your ideas could be proved then there would not be this discussion.

I give you evidence and you have no refute except to call me ignorant and a liar (Very scientific). You say I have unsupported assertion's and when I give you them you say they are not valid. It's like arguing with a wall.

And of course we know that science is never wrong...flat Earth hypothesis, Phlogiston theory, Geocentric theory of the solar system, Newton's corpuscular theory of light.

So, defend your position with valid scientific arguments...

I'd just like to point out that not only are you a liar, but you also haven't read anything in this thread. You just came in and started letting bullshit spew forth from that gaping maw you call a mouth.

Considering evolution is a process that works over many generations, no one could show you evolution on a forum. There are some wonderful scientific studies that have been performed that demonstrate the validity of evolution.

Such as
2008 Strauss, S.Y., J.A. Lau, T.W. Schoener and P. Tiffin. Evolution in ecological field experiments: implications for effect size. Ecology Letters 11: 199-207

and

Wielgoss, S., J. E. Barrick, O. Tenaillon, S. Cruvellier, B. Chane-Woon-Ming, C. Médigue, R. E. Lenski, and D. Schneider. 2011. Mutation rate inferred from synonymous substitutions in a long-term evolution experiment with Escherichia coli. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics: in press.

http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/showthread.php?p=329739#post329739

There is your evidence that proves evolution. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got other matters to attend to.

If that was your best attempt to address it, I'll just wait to hear from someone who is serious about it.

It was addressed as well as it should be. When you post something worthy of being serious about, then we'll take it seriously. You've stated your beliefs, with no evidentiary backing, therefore we can just dismiss it as being wrong without having to disprove any of your beliefs. But given your ability to do research, or provide sources that are valid, I doubt I'll be doing anything other than just summarily dismissing anything you say. But I hold hope that you'll be able to pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat. After all, that's what your supposed creator did.

[Hobie]

I think it's more that humans started out as a more ape-like species. We're still ape-like. A couple of small physical changes and a lot more body hair and you're not far off from a modern day ape.

We're something like 98% the same at the genetic level, but you remember what Patrick Ewing looked like? (posting from phone so I won't snag a pic)

That dude was at least 98.1% the same, practically a living breathing missing link.

[jw33]

Chevy builds the best damn truck, period.

[Denny]

You know, I had to let this post sit in the back of my head for a day before responding. That's because, mostly, I don't disagree with it directly. My main issue is that the Bible just isn't specific enough. And while you have some very good interpretations and ideas, it's near impossible to conclude on whether or not that is what the author meant. For the same reason, I hated high-school literature classes.

That's probably why the Bible isn't discussed in high-school literature classes as well. LOL... OK, maybe not.

I really don't have any argument against any of this. As it is the commonly accepted order of events and has been for a long, long time. But we are making a mountain out of a mole hill here in terms of explicit text. There is just so much it doesn't say that it makes it hard to include the Bible in the discussion of evolution. Although, using scientific knowledge is a certainly interesting way to fill in the blanks, imo.

I just find it interesting that the connection can be made. Interesting enough to bring it into a discussion on evolution.

I don't think that this necessarily goes against any evolution theory. The Genesis creation story only covers the first "days", whatever those time periods may mean. It simply doesn't say that an organism could not evolve after man. And the whole building man of clay and breathing life into him could correlate some (albeit rudimentary) evolution story. That may be a stretch though.

What is weird is that it really doesn't go against, rather puts God directly in the role of making any changes instead of millions of years of these changes that have yet to be proven.

Thanks for looking into the post!

It was addressed as well as it should be. When you post something worthy of being serious about, then we'll take it seriously. You've stated your beliefs, with no evidentiary backing, therefore we can just dismiss it as being wrong without having to disprove any of your beliefs. But given your ability to do research, or provide sources that are valid, I doubt I'll be doing anything other than just summarily dismissing anything you say. But I hold hope that you'll be able to pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat. After all, that's what your supposed creator did.

That is why you fail at this conversation and probably any other intellectual discussion you try to wedge yourself into.

If you'd have half a brain, you'd notice that the source I cite is the one I am supposed to cite, given my stance. Now, if there is something that was said from that source that would go against any scientific claims, I'd be all ears to hear about it, although I seriously doubt it would be coming from you.

What I did do, however, is show how Creation can be used in an evolutionary discussion in or out of a classroom.

[Maddhattter]

That's probably why the Bible isn't discussed in high-school literature classes as well. LOL... OK, maybe not.

Based on what exlude said, that would be the exact reason that the Bible should be discussed in literature classes. I may have misinterpreted, however.

I just find it interesting that the connection can be made. Interesting enough to bring it into a discussion on evolution.

While you may find it interesting, you don't discuss the works of Shakespeare when discussing geology for the same reason the bible and evolution don't mix.

One is science, supported by evidence and the scientific method, the other is literature.

What is weird is that it really doesn't go against, rather puts God directly in the role of making any changes instead of millions of years of these changes that have yet to be proven.

Except the changes have been proven, from a scientific perspective, regardless of your belief. I've even cited scientific papers that demonstrate evolution.

You can believe god/gods/the tooth fairy or anything else was "directly in the role of making any changes", but until you can support your assertion with evidence, there is no place for that discussion in the science classroom.

Thanks for looking into the post!

Ah, so that's how no one has had a problem with your timeline... You only acknowledge those that don't explicitly disagree with you.

That is why you fail at this conversation and probably any other intellectual discussion you try to wedge yourself into.

If you'd have half a brain, you'd notice that the source I cite is the one I am supposed to cite, given my stance.

You don't seem to quite understand how using proper sources work. Your stance is irrelevant to the sources. You cited sources that have different interpretations of the same book, yet provide no evidence to show for anything, in that regard. You're still making fallacious appeals to popularity and tradition.

All you've done is assert your stance then show that others assert different stances, and state that it's OK.

Now, if there is something that was said from that source that would go against any scientific claims, I'd be all ears to hear about it, although I seriously doubt it would be coming from you.

There is something that goes against all scientific claims, by definition. Your "Moses hypothesis", right along with all the other interpretations invoke the supernatural, which cannot exists.

What I did do, however, is show how Creation can be used in an evolutionary discussion in or out of a classroom.

No, you just showed how you can assert your position with no evidence to support it when others are discussing science.

You also seem to think that declaring that your assertion does not disagree with science, when it does by invoking the supernatural, somehow increases it's validity in the context of any discussion on science.

You can feel free to think that God magicked up everything from nothing. That is fine.

Until religion can be shown to be scientifically credible, it has no place in any scientific discussion, or in the science classroom. Or any public classroom for that matter, as all religions would have to be given equal time and there would be no way to cover them all.

[Denny]

No, exlude was the only one to address my breakdown with out a blanket "nu-uh" statement.

[Maddhattter]

No, exlude was the only one to address my breakdown with out a blanket "nu-uh" statement.

Except that I didn't respond to your timeline with "nu-uh". I didn't even say your timeline was wrong. I simply stated that there was no reason to believe that Moses meant anything other than day when he said day or that a god/gods had a hand in the process. Something you've still ignored repeatedly.

You just summarily dismissed the comment implying that it was not serious. I never stated my response was not serious, just that it required no effort because I only had to point out the lack of evidence presented, and the fallicies that were given.

[The King]

I'd just like to point out that not only are you a liar, but you also haven't read anything in this thread. You just came in and started letting bullshit spew forth from that gaping maw you call a mouth.

Racrboy has selflessly graced this thread with yet another outstanding post.

[stephen4785]

Well, first, the fossil record is not the only evidence to evolution. For example, observed instances of speciation are about the best evidence for evolution we have. Second, saying that the fossil record is untestable is another misconception. Can we not already date the fossil records through several different means?
I've already proven this wrong. The "2LOT" explicitly states that it applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS. Life is very obviously not a closed system.
Not only that, but your misinterpretation of the 2LOT would lead us to believe that we could not find order anywhere in nature. If that's true then why do proteins shape and behave so predictably? Why do snowflakes have very ordered structures?
When I give you very specific reasons why things won't work (for example, applying the 2LOT to living/open systems) and you simply ignore them and I must restate myself, who do you thinks feels like they are arguing with a wall?
Difference being, science is designed to self correct and become more true over time. Seeing as how the religious side already has the conclusion and all evidence must be described/spun to fit that conclusion, it's hard to say that truth is the desired endstate.

1.The formation of the fossil record took place in the unobserved, unrepeatable past. Thus, any claim as to how it came about (ie: "macroevolution", "progressive creation", etc.) was also not subject to direct observation. Not testable. Not a theory.
Just so I'm clear...can you post a link to the instances of speciation you are referring to?

2.Do you consider the universe as a closed system? Do you believe in the Big Bang?
Also, do you believe simply adding energy to a closed system will produce life?

3.Biological increase in complexity is exemplified by a seed becoming a bush or flower or tree, or a fertilized egg becoming a person. However, the design is already present in these beginnings of life. The DNA is there from the beginning, along with whatever might be "sparking" it, and the rest is simply a matter of following instructions. It is not a random ordering from a non-ordered condition. It is a design being executed.


4. Crystallization happens to specific elements at specific times under specific conditions. It is a phenomena that is intrinsic to the atomic structure of the element or compound being considered. It is not a random ordering of a material from a non-ordered state, but rather the result of a specific design involved in the material and can be counted on to happen every time under the prescribed conditions. What is interesting about this particular thing is that there is a heat transfer involved in crystallization and the second law of thermodynamics is not violated therein. Heat is diffused.

5.I was referring more to madhater.....not you specifically.


I want to say that I appreciate someone who can debate and disagree civilly. We may never agree but it's nice to have someone who doesn't inevitably resort to childish name calling and personal insults. Let me ask you something...Do you believe in Geomagnetic field decay? If the earth's magnetic field is decaying at a predictable rate decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years, then using that equation and going back 20,000 years, the heat produced would have liquefied the Earth. How can the Earth be 600 billion years old?