An Atheistic Examination of the Culture of Death
Corn Off the Cobb - Fri, Jan 14, 2005
Education in Georgia is evolving:
Biology Book Stickers Ruled UnconstitutionalA federal judge on Thursday ordered the immediate removal of stickers placed in high school biology textbooks by school officials in suburban Cobb County that call evolution "a theory, not a fact," saying they were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
(Top) —Posted by: The Raving Atheist in The Daily Rave · Permalink · 52 Comments
·•◊•·
The Raving Atheist » Comments on: Corn Off the Cobb
HAHA! Those stupid fundies! I wonder if they prayed real hard to have God allow their stickers to stay? Maybe the didnt pray hard enough!
There is a book available for college students called "How to Stay Christian in College". Very telling that a book like this is even deemed necessary to publish from the Christian community!
I wonder why nobody ever felt the need to publish a "How to Stay Atheist in College" book?
Ive said it before and Ill say it again. As education increases in a community, religiosity decreases. And of course the less educated, more religious parents are deathly afraid of such a thing. But at the same time they DO want their kids to get at least some education. What to do, oh what to do? Lets pray!!
:P
[Edit] January 14, 2005
what to do?
they send them to bob jones university, of course.....
[Edit] January 14, 2005
The answer is easy, AK: simply dumb down your public school education (pull a Kansas and try to promote quack science like ID), remove books from the libraries, and keep your TeeVee tuned to Faux News 24/7.
If the kids are dumb enough, then they won't get in to them high-falutin' colleges like Yale and Rice, instead they can go to West Mobile (AL) City College, where they can get a good edumacation and keep their beliefs about the sky monkey that lives in the clouds and delivers toys to all the good chilluns who believes, while raining monkey poop on all the bad chillins who make fun of 'im.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
For some real genius commentary, check out the blog on the Atlanta Journal Constitution's webpage:
Evolution: A Sticky Situation in Cobb
I'd also like to mention I'm from Cobb County. It's actually full of wealthy and educated families, despite the impressions some might get. Notwithstanding, darkness reigns.
Oh, I went to Marietta High School, which is part of Marietta city so I wouldn't have been affected either way.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
I went to the blog, but I could only read so many before I got dizzy. I'll never understand why a religionist/creationist thinks that just because we don't have all the answers, means that the science is all wrong and god did just as the bible said. I mean, really, I'm not rocket scientist, but come on, how stupid are they?? (rhetorical, I know). The theory of evolution is a proven fact, albeit with some parts yet to be fully explained. That doesn't mean its wrong. I really hate stupid people more than anything.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
I was perusing the Rapture Ready bulletin board (i like to pummel my brain with stupid-juice once in awhile), and I actually saw a thread about this issue. Of course lots of Xtians got in and said "evolution is dumb. God will smite the biologists!" but some guy got in there and actually defended evolution and the ruling in the county!!! I was shocked!
He proceeded to tell everyone in the thread that "Intelligent Design has offered to solutions, no new evidence, no research, no progress in terms of discovering more information about life and the processes on which it operates. ID has done nothing for science other than attempt to replace real evolutionary answers with "god did it" answers. It is the anti-science" (that was a paraphrase but you get the idea).
I was waiting to see how quickly he would get banned. But more importantly, it made me realize something. the ID movement hasnt done a single thing towards finding any answers or making and progress in learning about life. ID only attempts to trash evolution (like an ad-hominem from one junk theory directed at a good theory). It is ridiculous!
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Hell ya! I wish I was in biology!
[Edit] January 14, 2005
AK,
It's easy to see why ID and its companion "irreducible complexity" cannot make progress in anything. Once you have decided that something is irreducibly complex and therefore the product of intelligent design, your inquiry stops. There's nothing else to do, because (a) at that point, you've cast aside the one theory that actually has some supporting evidence and (b) you have no evidence to use as a starting point for studying the designer or the methods of design and creation.
This analysis becomes really easy when you simply accept ID for the sake of argument.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
One of my favorite comments from Luke's URL:
It reminds me of something else I've just seen:
Un-fuckin'-believable. Pun intended.
Strangely enough, both used "Paul" as a posting handle. Think that's a co-in-ki-dink?
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Okay, anyone who hasn't done so yet, go read those comments!
Better yet, just use the Find feature in your browser to follow the entity known as Paul as he defends creationism.
I haven't laughed this hard in a long time!
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Actually, the scientologists believe that we are millions of years old, that were were traumatized for all time by having our souls stuck in volcanos that never existed, and that Jesus was a feature film. Don't believe me, check it out for yourself. :D
[Edit] January 14, 2005
HAHAHA. It's amazing how ignorant someone can be and still type.
But, really, this country is in some serious fuckin' trouble with the likes of Dan and Paul.
Shouldn't we be able to figure out how to make money off of these guys? They ain't too bright.
Where do you start with someone who believes that only one book is worth reading and doesn't know the difference between a scientist and scientology?
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Well, DAve, there are lots of people making lots of money off of these stupid people, namely fundamentalist preachers, scientiology, various cults and sects. L. Ron Hubbard had it right when he (allegedly) said the only was to make real money is to start a religion so you are tax-exempt.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
It makes me laugh when the fundies say that evolution is false because there are missing links in the fossil record.
ALL their evidence is missing.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Dave, yes, this country is in serious fuckin' trouble. My son tells me that this kind of ignorance is not at all unusual at one of our nation's largest colleges.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Good News - Bad News
The good is the well over Half of the first 20 posts currently on Luke's link are Supportive of the courts ruling. They're actually having it out in a similar fashion to what I've seen here.
The bad news is that so many nutters REALLY have no idea that Studying a subject like Evolution IS questioning it. They simply don't know how to think critically and don't want their kids to learn to do so either.
Scary freakin' stuff!
[Edit] January 14, 2005
I told you so.
Interesting candidate for an illustration of "selective reasoning." I'm wondering how many of the "I told you so"'s
have panned out versus the number that have not.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Gravity is a religion and its bulsh*t! I know in my heart that we are all held onto the earth by angels, not some "invisible" force of gravity.
Gravity is only a THEORY! know what that means? it means it has no basis in reality!
LOLOL sorry I had to do a fundy-who-dont-know-shit-about-critical-thinking impression.
Remember forlks, whenever anyone says "evolution is only a theory" as if thats an argument, school them with this reply: "Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither"
[Edit] January 14, 2005
A comment I made to a friend who isn't an extreme fundamentalist, but has some traits, regarding ID was this: Regardless of whether or not evolution is correct, it has ABSOLUTELY no relevance when considering ID. Even if evolution was shot down and shown to be completely wrong, ID still has no evidence for it. ID "scientists" should spend their time trying to prove ID, not disprove evolution.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
I love this site more than life itself.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
hermy, you are old enough to have a son that is college age, and you still swear when you don't have to? Weak, man. As for the article, I don't see anyone addressing the holes in the theory of evoloution that are so big you could drive a truck through. How we found dinosaurs, etc., but no "missing link" that should have existed millions of years more recently, and therefore should be no problem to find. Yeesh. And you think the BIBLE is far fetched. Thank God atheists are a minority In the U.S. The stuff you come up with........
[Edit] January 14, 2005
How to stay Christian in College? Become a business major and don't learn shit. (sorry business majors!)
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Sometimes I think I already died, went to Hell, and am now condemned to read "evolution is just a theory" for eternity.
OK, Evolution is just a theory, Chess is just a game, Beef Wellington is just roast beef, and Beethoven is just a composer. Lots of halfwits are about to display their ignorance about evolution. Next we will surely hear from meta moron: "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". And sooner or later, some super cretin will tell us Darwin converted to religion on his deathbed.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Chess rules. It's possibly the most refined and challenging of all games. Beef wellington is divine. Beethoven was genius personified, and, I think, greatest of all composers. But, I have to say, due to an overwhelming lack of evidence, that evolution is merely a theory, and not a very good one at that. Just as you need more proof to become any kind of theist, we would need more proof than what evoloution offers before even thinking about changing our minds. Therein lay the conundrum.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
AK said:Gravity is only a THEORY! know what that means? it means it has no basis in reality!
A big 'amen' to that, AK, but I'd go even farther than that...
This so-called "gravity" that the Bible-haters believe in--- they don't even call it a 'THEORY'; they try to pretend like it's a 'LAW'!
So, hell, let's all just refuse to obey it, because Jesus never told us we had to obey this so-called 'LAW'!
Halitosis, brother!
[Edit] January 14, 2005
omni is at it again: How we found dinosaurs, etc., but no "missing link" that should have existed millions of years more recently, and therefore should be no problem to find.
I could patiently explain how the process of fossilization guarantees that there will be gaps in the record. I could explain that over two dozen transitional fossils have been found--just not for the primate branch. I could point you to the paper about a species of flatworm which has a recognizable proto-eye, thus roasting that old chestnut once and for all. I could produce other demonstrations that you, like anyone else in a fundamentalist torpor simply don't know what you're talking about, but there's no point.
Instead, I'll narrow down to one assertion--one talking point, really, that you creationists keep returning to. Not because it's true, but because it's difficult to explain to the satisfaction of a scientifically illiterate person like you. I don't expect to convince you because you're going to do the fundamentalist equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and chanting "la la la I can't hear you", rather than re-examine the "evidence" which (doesn't) support your faith. However, if I can make this point publicly, then at least the next creationist twit who pops up here can get properly bitch-slapped with "asked and answered, idiot!"
For starters, "evolution" refers to "change in allelle frequency over time". That is the scientific definition of evolution and it's not a theory, it's a fact. There's evidence from biogeography, genetics, paleontology and other related disciplines which overwhelmingly confirms this. I will provide you with more citations than you can ever read, if you want proof: I've got more than 30 years of genetics research on my side (not personally--code reuse is a hallmark of the scientific process!)
Not only do we share more than 90% of our DNA with our closest primate ancestors but we also share only slightly less with field mice and pigs. We don't have as much in common with crocodiles or birds and even less in common with ants and dung beetles. Please explain how such commonalities that occur without common ancestry. Pointing and shouting is not allowed: you'll need to reference scientific publications and the peer-reviewed results of scientific inquiry. If you want to refute science, you'll need science to do it.
Evolution is a fact. The behaviour of light in a vacuum is a fact. The inverse square law for gravity is a fact. I can say this because anyone who wants to can undertake a scientific education, design experiments and, except for certain extremely difficult-to-measure quantities, can duplicate the results for himself. I also say this because when a scientist publishes the results of an experiment, other scientists scritinize that work and usually will attempt to recreate the results. Observation, formulation, prediction, verification--they're in use because they work but you also don't have science without all of them.
Witness the cold fusion furore of a few years ago: the international physics community demolished that finding--not because the results were unpopular--not because they contradicted divinely-inspired holy writ, but because nobody else could duplicate those results. They were easily falsified and not predictive. That got demonstrated through experimentation. That's how science works.
And deal with this: Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection based only on what we would consider to be the grossest observable forms of evidence. He did not have access to the last 50 years of molecular biology, genetics, sophisticated equipment nor mountains of additional data and his theory has only been vindicated by all of those developments. Sure, the finer details of the mechanism of natural selection are under investigation. Sure, new findings constantly validate or demonstrate the need for refinement, but no one with even a modest level of education in the natural sciences disputes evolution as a fact.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. I have a mountain of citations--references to acutal research not just arguments from authority, to back up my claim.
And here's where all you biblical literalists and evolution-deniers are disengenuous and plainly wrong-headed: except for the necessary variations required to validate data on organisms, as opposed to solid bodies moving through space or the behaviour of chemicals in a solution, biologists follow exactly the same scientific method that physicists and chemists do. So you trust the fruits of the scientific method enough to get on an airplane which was designed by people who practice a sub-specialty of physics (arrived at through the scientific method), and you'll take an antacid manufactured by a company that employs chemical engineers who simply make practical application of the body of knowledge accreted through the scientific method, and you'll turn your computer on to connect to the internet, engaging hundreds of processes developed by electrical and materials engineers who derive their practical applications from the results of scientific inquiry, but somehow paleobiologists, molecular biologists, taxonomists, geneticists and anyone who's actually examined the evidence from a scientific point of view are all wrong about evolution, which has been derived through the EXACT SAME SCIENTIFIC METHOD? (I really did feel the need to shout that last part.)
I call bullshit. This is willful ignorance of information which would force you to alter your ontological outlook, should you ever admit its validity.
We don't need to produce a transitional fossil (the so-called missing link) to validate the scientific claim that humans share a common ancestor with primates, and indeed, most mammals. This whole missing link non-issue is a hold-over from the turn of the previous century, when the case for evolution and natural selection was being made by scientists who had to look at the grossest evidence of change: e.g. similarity of bone structure, common animal behaviours, obvious inherited traits such as coloration... They were hoping for a transitional fossil because it would provide a straight-line progression at the level they were capable of observing, from primate ancestors to modern humans.
The advent of genetic science and genotyping has made the missing link irrelevant. The link is no longer missing. We've found it in the genetic code which all primates have in common. The work isn't done, the investigation into our understanding of the hows and whys will still continue but for your intents and purposes, the case is closed. Get over it.
Now it's your turn to wave your hands in the air and go "[mumble mumble] God", "[mumble mumble] Bible", "[mumble mumble] case for intelligent design..." What I don't expect you to do is pick up the gauntlet and provide a scientific refutation of the fact of evolution, nor it's theoretical mechanism, natural selection. The best I'll get is probably a link to an intelligent design website where an electrical engineering undergrad claims to have found proof that evolution is false, or a series of quotes, devoid of context, from scientists who are not currently practicing or have no direct experience in genetics, molecular- or paleobiology. You won't
I look forward to your logical contortions or, more predictably, your complete misreading of this post.
Straw man? Check! Argument from Ignorance? Check! Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Check! Insistance on the universality of personal experience? Check! Non-sequiters about "you can't prove love doesn't exist"? Check! Alleged evidence of the impossibility of a scientific theory which I'm not equipped to understand? Check!
Looks like you're all set, omni. Go forth and smite those atheists inthenameofthefathersonandtheholyghost!
[Edit] January 14, 2005
omni: Just as you need more proof to become any kind of theist, we would need more proof than what evoloution offers before even thinking about changing our minds. Therein lay the conundrum.
You'd have to learn more about science than you can get by watching the "Movie of the Week". Your beliefs will suffer in the process. Therein lies the connundrum.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
P.S. omni: Bach could kick Beethoven's ass while simultaneously composing a Tocatta and Fugue and fathering 17 more children.
P.P.S. You have "overwhelming evidence" of evolution as a theory? Yawn. Wake me when Richard Dawkins accepts Jesus as his PLAS.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Wow. You spent all that time typing that novel of utter nonsense. Wasted time. The fact of the matter still is that if you can't fully disprove my perspective, you've accomplished nothing.Bach was great, to be sure. He's my 2nd favorite. But beethoven was better. Sounds like your hatred is more powerful than your brain. Science is not god. god created science. Get it? Show me the evidence of evolution, including the missing link, and i'll renounce my faith, right now. If not, shut it. You don't know what your'e talking about.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
they should put that label on the cover of the bible instead.
"a theory, not a fact"
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Why the hostility, Omni? Schemanista didn't attack you, or anything. It sounds like your Chistian Love(tm) is being strained. Perhaps you need to take a break?
I'll tell you, though; if anything is still alive in two thousand years or so, there's gonna be plenty of fossilized human corpses, what with all those preservatives we pump ourselves full of. The dinasaurs had to do it the hard way; they needed to get their remains stuck in a place with no oxygen for decomposition. Variations of the big lizards lived for millions of years, and how many fossils do we have? A few thousand, if even that many, most of them incomplete? Can we really expect every critter that walked around for a few days would end up a fossil?
Ask Schemanista for his proof, Omni, and show us yours. Otherwise, hold your tongue.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
omni fanned his hands frantically in front of him as he sputtered:
Wasted time.
I stated that going into this. You seem to be unable to comprehend written English.
The fact of the matter still is that if you can't fully disprove my perspective, you've accomplished nothing.,
I've proven that you can't comprehend written English. And I don't have to fully disprove your perspective. I shot your main pillar full of holes. The rest collapses on its own.
Show me the evidence of evolution,
It was in the novel. You either didn't read it, didn't understand it, you can conclusively refute it, or you're lying. I didn't see any refutation. Hmm, strange but not entirely unexpected.
Here's a hint: the "evidence" is the part about change in allelle frequency. If you don't understand that then you're way out of your league and should really stop talking about evolution. Or can you conclusively prove that evolution is not defined this way? Can you prove that allelles do not shift within a population over an observable period of time and that this shift is not a response to organismically-external stimuli (i.e. organisms evolve as a genetic response to environmental stimuli)? Show all your work: you're about to win a Nobel prize (yeah, this is me holding my breath).
including the missing link,
The missing link was in there as well. Here's a hint for your fundamentally-damaged brain: the bit about genetic commonality in the primate taxonomic branch as an indicator of a common ancestor. We don't need a fossil. We don't even need the exact genotype. The "missing link" is a fundamentalist straw-man argument. Sections of the contemporary genotypes are identical. In every other instance in nature, this indicates a common ancestor. Do you have proof that our genotype is not almost identical to a chimpanzee's? Or maybe Satan planted this DNA evidence to confuse the rationalists? I actually expect you to type that at some point in time.
Re-read that section and refute it, or if you have any shame, you'll shut the fuck up.
and i'll renounce my faith, right now.
Liar. You have no intention of accepting as valid anything which challenges your beliefs. Every part of that "nonsense" is factually supportable. Prove that evolution is not defined as changes in allelle frequency. Prove that these changes have not been observed. Prove that these changes do not manifest themselves as speciation and variation within a species. Prove that these changes could not account for the differences between our human genotype and our nearest primate relatives. Prove that the commonalities do not indicate a common ancestor.
I've just handed you the means to conclusively disprove evolution as a fact and the theory of natural selection. Will you step up? Nope. You can't. You won't. You'll obfuscate and lie instead. It's the fundmentalist Christian way.
Aren't you the least bit embarrassed by behaving exactly as I predicted you would? I at least would have zagged when you expected me to zig.
If not, shut it. You don't know what your'e talking about.
Why not just get God to smite me? That will shut me up. And it's the only way you'll get me to stop demonstrating that you're full of shit.
[Edit] January 14, 2005
Schemanista, omni can't receieve your transmission because his tinfoil hat blocks all the vibrating molecules and electrons evil secularists and scientists have aimed at his brain. You see, there is this gigantic conspiracy involving all but a smidgen of biological scientists and a handful of physicists. Practically the whole scientific community has conspired to hide the truth of the Bible and God's Word. This conspiracy has a shit load more people in it than it took to fly remote controlled airplanes into the WTC. That's why all the good biologists are electrical engineers --they're not part of the conspiracy.
Who are you going to believe about something like evolution anyway? A bunch of scientists who have spent all their lives studying something like biology, or Omni, who doesn't actually know any science, but reads the Bible, and by is own admission is wiser than Stephen Hawking?
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Schemanista, why, simply, Thank you.
Omni, what are you doing here? You don't appear to be learning and you keep saying there is "no evidence" despite Overwhelming evidence. You're not dumb. I've seen your thinkin' process in action. That leaves you being very, very Stupid. You can think but refuse to be honest and see what is in front of you simply (apparently) because it negates something you have an emotional attachment to believing.
As you can see, I've put aside being rude and disgusting for a while. I'm sure I'll get back to being such because it is fun. For now, I'd rather write something that you'll read and, POSSIBLY, be able to understand. I don't think you will understand though because you are so overwhelmingly enamoured of your beliefs that you deny reality.
Atheists, like everyone else, don't KNOW for an incontrovertible fact that there is no ultimate creator of our universe. We, unlike theists, simply don't see any reason in subscribing to the primitive beliefs of long dead proto-sciences and other superstitions. Evolution happens. That isn't debatable regardless of what anyone believes. HOW it happens is pretty much completely understood although the scientific method is always open to new evidence which might change our understanding in some way(s). ALL current creationist hypotheses have been demonstrably refuted so WHY do you insist that they haven't? Because you are Emotionally Attached to your belief.
Be gone or wisen up already. And if you choose to Be Gone then have a good life and enjoy your family and friends and beliefs. Your posts on here ARE Rude and Insulting EVEN when you try to be respectful. You can't do it because you are dishonest about the reasons for your beliefs.
That being said, Fuck off man. You aren't helping your cause or anyone else by posting your inane non-sequitors (such as "where is the 'missing link?' " type questions) Oke, I'm done. Oh yeah, THANKS again Schemansta! You are extremely eloquent and concise. I appreciate it greatly dude.
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Sure, theres evidence of evolution on a small scale. Like the galapagos islands. But on the scale that would create us from mush? Besides, there is always a prime mover. Anything being set into motion must be set by something else. When you get back far enough, something intelligent had to have set the universe in motion. It's the only possible explaination.
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Why not just get God to smite me? That will shut me up. And it's the only way you'll get me to stop demonstrating that you're full of shit.
Ow! God just smit me!
(or should that be "smited"?)
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Oh, yeah, Omni, speaking of "the missing link"--- now exactly where do think those stone tablets are... the ones that God gave Moses with the Ten Commandments carved on them?
Do you think the dog ate them?
OK, THIS I PROMISE, OMNI!!!
I'll believe in your Imaginary Friend as soon as we see those stone tablets and a panel of independent scientists can verify that God made them.
Unitl then, there's a "missing link" in your Bible story.
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Omni said: "Sure, theres evidence of evolution on a small scale. Like the galapagos islands. But on the scale that would create us from mush?"
Given that a baby can grow from mush in 9 months, how much can grow from mush in a billion years?
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Glenstonecottage writes: "...there's a missing link in your Bible story."
Good point Glen,but you didn't go far enough. Where are ANY of the Xtian relics/missing links? Where are the original Bible transcripts, Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, the cross Jesus died on, the Holy Grail, remnants of the Tower of Babel, etc. etc. Thumpers can't produce ONE,NOT ONE Xtian relic which vary in age from 2000 - 5000 years. And yet, they demand that scientists produce fossils that are MILLIONS of years old. A glaring double standard, to be sure.
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Omni in post #35 has been reduced to this:
"Sure, theres evidence of evolution on a small scale."
So we're all now waiting for renunciation of your faith on a small scale as you promised in post #29.
"But on the scale that would create us from mush?"
This rhetorical flourish contains no logic or evidence, and practically begs schemanista to provide a brilliant outline of the evidence, similar to the one that reduced omni to accepting a small part of evolution, and which should require any thinking person to accept evolution completely.
"Besides, there is always a prime mover . . . ."
Here omni changes the issue because he can't refute the specifics of schemanista's evidence.
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Omni said: "Besides, there is always a prime mover. Anything being set into motion must be set by something else. When you get back far enough, something intelligent had to have set the universe in motion. It's the only possible explaination."
First, this is irrelevant to dis/proving Evolution since Evolution Theory says nothing about the origin of life, only about how existing life grows adaptively.
Second, the Prime Mover argument fails because a prime mover needs a second prime mover, who needs a third prime mover, and so on. Did God evolve or was he created?
Third, natural nuclear, magnetic, electrical, gravitational, hydraulic, and thermodynamic forces are immense beyond our imagination. The recent tsunami was caused by an earthquake powerful enough to lift the Indian Ocean several feet, with enough force to send a wave of water around the globe.
Finally, objects in motion do not need to be set in motion. The motion of the Earth around the Sun is simply the motion of the cosmic dust cloud that formed the Sun billions of years ago. Whether we look inward at the atom or outward at the galaxies, we always see objects swirling around a center. It seems that this is the basic structure of the universe.
==============================================================
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Okay, rationalists: observe closely. This is the mind of a creationist at work. I've demonstrated that there's no point in talking to omni or people like him. Instead, I'll talk over him like a Victorian doctor discussing a mental patient with colleagues. Wow! How apt is that analogy?
omni has been given the opportunity to refute evidence of evolution as a scientific fact. With a specific logical proposition under consideration (evolution=delta allelle frequency), what does he decide to do? Obfuscate. Can I call 'em or what?
Remember, in comment 24 he said "But, I have to say, due to an overwhelming lack of evidence, that evolution is merely a theory, and not a very good one at that."
I explained to him not only that evolution is treated as a fact by scientists but also that an overwhelming body of evidence supports this assertion. I then introduced the idea that natural selection, as a theory, does a pretty good job of explaining "why" evolution occurs, although it's constantly being refined. This isn't splitting hairs: it's saying what I mean and meaning what I say. Here's how he deals with that inconveniece. I'm arguing as a rationalist should--from clearly-defined logical propositions. So what does he do?
Sure, theres evidence of evolution on a small scale. Like the galapagos islands. But on the scale that would create us from mush?
Spot that? I told him that evolution is a change in allelle frequency. I alluded to the link between these changes and observable differences at the gross level such as variation in coloration, changes in skeletal structure, etc. which is what got us looking at allelles in the first place. (Aside: can someone please explain how evolution occurs on any level but the small scale? Allelles aren't exactly the size of archipelagoes, or even 767s for that matter.)
Ah, but that's not what he's arguing. "Large scale evolution" is creationist code for abiogenesis. That's not what the observable fact of evolution and theories such as natural selection are even attempting to describe. It's another straw man argument. Assert that scientists are saying "because we can observe changes in allelle frequency over time in populations of organisms then that means we came from mush". Do you know any responsible scientist who uses evolution to buttress abiogenesis in this manner? Neither does omni. He's not arguing about what any scientists says: he's arguing about what creationists say that scientists are saying. That's not a minor error, like thinking someone means this Tuesday when they mean next week. It's intellectual dishonesty because they're trying to discredit something that their opponents never asserted.
In case the above is not clear: evolution does not prove abiogenesis. There is evidence to support the theory that life on this planet arose through naturalistic processes, and in particular, the success that biochemists have had demonstrating that complex organic molecules can spontaneously form from their constituents points to this, but abiogenesis is irrelevant to any argument about evolution.
Just try to get a Creationist to be honest about that. Maybe you'll have more success than me.
Besides, there is always a prime mover. Anything being set into motion must be set by something else.
Are you really going to trust this as a statement of fact? This is a person who doesn't even understand why evolution is a scientific fact, not a theory and that the absence of a missing link does not disprove abiogenesis because the two are only distantly related and not causally connected, exept in the broadest possible definition of causality.
When you get back far enough, something intelligent had to have set the universe in motion. It's the only possible explaination.
See: more straw men. Like all creationists, he's conflating cosmology with abiogenesis. First he's talking about muck as proof that evolution doesn't exist, now he's saying that muck disproves current cosmological theory. Impressive neh? Let's combine non-sequiter with red herring with post hoc ergo propter hoc and see what we get. Oh, my goodness: it looks like creationism. And his slightly more loquacious brother Intelligent Design.
Can you trust his assertion? Bozo the Creationist is honking his nose and shouting "You can't get something for nothing! Gawd musta done it!" He's not going to bother addressing the fact that geology can present evidence of stratification as a guide to how the earth developed over time. He can't deal with the inconvenient fact that paleontologists have fossil evidence which shows a clear progression, encoded in the strata associated with each geological age, from extremely simple to increasingly complex forms of life. He can't deal with the fact that biochemists have demonstrated conditions in which complex organic compounds-- amino acids even! -- the essential precursors for life, can spontaneously organize themselves from their constituent compounds. He can't deal with a preponderance of evidence which does not make abiogenesis a fact but does obviously tips the scale in favour of aboigenesis as a valid scientific theory.
Instead, we're supposed to be distracted by his red nose which goes "honk" when he squeezes it.
[honk]"Musta been Gawd!" [honk] Slam dunk!"
Yeah right.
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Okay, rationalists: observe closely. This is the mind of a creationist at work. I've demonstrated that there's no point in talking to omni or people like him. Instead, I'll talk over him like a Victorian doctor discussing a mental patient with colleagues. Wow! How apt is that analogy?
omni has been given the opportunity to refute evidence of evolution as a scientific fact. With a specific logical proposition under consideration (evolution=delta allelle frequency), what does he decide to do? Obfuscate. Can I call 'em or what?
Remember, in comment 24 he said "But, I have to say, due to an overwhelming lack of evidence, that evolution is merely a theory, and not a very good one at that."
I explained to him not only that evolution is treated as a fact by scientists but also that an overwhelming body of evidence supports this assertion. I then introduced the idea that natural selection, as a theory, does a pretty good job of explaining "why" evolution occurs, although it's constantly being refined. This isn't splitting hairs: it's saying what I mean and meaning what I say. Here's how he deals with that inconveniece. I'm arguing as a rationalist should--from clearly-defined logical propositions. So what does he do?
Sure, theres evidence of evolution on a small scale. Like the galapagos islands. But on the scale that would create us from mush?
Spot that? I told him that evolution is a change in allelle frequency. I alluded to the link between these changes and observable differences at the gross level such as variation in coloration, changes in skeletal structure, etc. which is what got us looking at allelles in the first place. (Aside: can someone please explain how evolution occurs on any level but the small scale? Allelles aren't exactly the size of archipelagoes, or even 767s for that matter.)
Ah, but that's not what he's arguing. "Large scale evolution" is creationist code for abiogenesis. That's not what the observable fact of evolution and theories such as natural selection are even attempting to describe. It's another straw man argument. Assert that scientists are saying "because we can observe changes in allelle frequency over time in populations of organisms then that means we came from mush". Do you know any responsible scientist who uses evolution to buttress abiogenesis in this manner? Neither does omni. He's not arguing about what any scientists says: he's arguing about what creationists say that scientists are saying. That's not a minor error, like thinking someone means this Tuesday when they mean next week. It's intellectual dishonesty because they're trying to discredit something that their opponents never asserted.
In case the above is not clear: evolution does not prove abiogenesis. There is evidence to support the theory that life on this planet arose through naturalistic processes, and in particular, the success that biochemists have had demonstrating that complex organic molecules can spontaneously form from their constituents points to this, but abiogenesis is irrelevant to any argument about evolution.
Just try to get a Creationist to be honest about that. Maybe you'll have more success than me.
Besides, there is always a prime mover. Anything being set into motion must be set by something else.
Are you really going to trust this as a statement of fact? This is a person who doesn't even understand why evolution is a scientific fact, not a theory and that the absence of a missing link does not disprove abiogenesis because the two are only distantly related and not causally connected, exept in the broadest possible definition of causality.
When you get back far enough, something intelligent had to have set the universe in motion. It's the only possible explaination.
See: more straw men. Like all creationists, he's conflating cosmology with abiogenesis. First he's talking about muck as proof that evolution doesn't exist, now he's saying that muck disproves current cosmological theory. Impressive neh? Let's combine non-sequiter with red herring with post hoc ergo propter hoc and see what we get. Oh, my goodness: it looks like creationism. And his slightly more loquacious brother Intelligent Design.
Can you trust his assertion? Bozo the Creationist is honking his nose and shouting "You can't get something for nothing! Gawd musta done it!" He's not going to bother addressing the fact that geology can present evidence of stratification as a guide to how the earth developed over time. He can't deal with the inconvenient fact that paleontologists have fossil evidence which shows a clear progression, encoded in the strata associated with each geological age, from extremely simple to increasingly complex forms of life. He can't deal with the fact that biochemists have demonstrated conditions in which complex organic compounds-- amino acids even! -- the essential precursors for life, can spontaneously organize themselves from their constituent compounds. He can't deal with a preponderance of evidence which does not make abiogenesis a fact but does obviously tips the scale in favour of aboigenesis as a valid scientific theory.
Instead, we're supposed to be distracted by his red nose which goes "honk" when he squeezes it.
[honk]"Musta been Gawd!" [honk] Slam dunk!"
Yeah right.
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Omni, why don't you pick up Missing Links by Robert A. Martin from Amazon.com?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0763721964/qid=1105812690/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-5920115-3392056?v=glance&s=books
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Well, at least the One True Faith, Catholicism, accepts evolution. I feel sorry for you, omni, for ignoring what the spokesperson for God says. Maybe you'll be forgiven, but God can be kinda fickle about little things.
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Heaven is above, hell is below. The wise men came from the four courners. The earth is flat (and square) or there is no faith and the bible is false. This was the thinking not that long ago. A few photos from space, a plane trip, eventually this horrible attack on faith was accepted. I can't believe some small xtian sects are still having a problem with evolution. The DNA evidence alone should convince anyone. Not to fear though, in a hundred years creationism will be like the flat earth and no faith will admit they ever believed in it.
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Not to fear though, in a hundred years creationism will be like the flat earth and no faith will admit they ever believed in it.
Exactly, Kyle. My Sunday newspaper has a kids' section which recently had a history of Arabic numbers. (Attention, thumpers, you may not know this but our ten-digit numbering system was invented by the Arabs!)
One of the many drawbacks of Roman numerals was that they didn''t have a symbol for zero...
And strangely enough, the use of the number zero was the very reason that the medieval Catholic church attempted to supress Arabic numerals for several centuries... until they finally had to give it up around 1100 AD.
So why were medieval Catholic popes opposed to the number zero?
Well, you see, God the creator created heaven and earth out of nothing, and zero represents "nothing".... therefore, obviously, God would not approve of the number zero!
So you may not realize it thumpers, but you come from a long line of forgotten spiritual predecessors... the medieval doofuses, in their day, were just as full of God, and just as full of shit, as you are today.
The Theologian is an owl, sitting on an old dead branch in the tree of human knowledge, and hooting the same old hoots that have been hooted for hundreds and thousands of years, but he has never given a hoot for progress. -Emmet F. Fields
[Edit] January 15, 2005
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2606/hypatia.htm
This site is dedicated to Hypatia , a true martyr for knowledge.
She was a mathematician, scientist, philosopher, and the head librarian of the Great Library of Alexandria.
She was flayed and killed by Christians when they burned the great library in 415 AD.
Cyril, the leader of the Christians, was later made a saint.
[Edit] January 15, 2005
Paul sayeth: This rhetorical flourish contains no logic or evidence, and practically begs schemanista to provide a brilliant outline of the evidence, similar to the one that reduced omni to accepting a small part of evolution, and which should require any thinking person to accept evolution completely.
Thanks for the compliment but I'm at the limit of my education here.
The talk.origns.archive has a much better summary of evolution and abiogenesis than I could write with my pitiful undergraduate liberal arts degree.
The books that they recommend in their FAQ will equip any rationalist with the tools that they need to discuss evolution and abiogenesis intelligently. Creationists, even those of the ID stripe, should quarrantine that site and propose legislation to have it's ISP bombed out of existence.
You'd laugh if I told you what my dual-major in college was. Instead, I'll confess that I've been reading talk.origins for years and most of my scientific education has come from chasing down stray references which appeared there.
[Edit] January 15, 2005
If you think some of the postings on the Atlanta Journal Constitution's web page are wacky, check out these reader reviews of Shrek 2. It reflects on many of the discussions we try to have with theists on this site. If your faith makes you think Shrek 2 is extremely offensive, then it's had to conceive how their mind works.
http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2004/shrek2.html
[Edit] January 17, 2005
Debbie: it's had to conceive how their mind works
The argument about whether or not the "Ugly Stepsister" was transgendered (of course "she" was!) is pure slapstick.
I also like the line about how racy humor constitutes "spiritual weapons" which will invade the minds of children.
I think Sagan said it best: they inhabit a demon-haunted world.
[Edit] January 17, 2005
As it's pertinent to this topic, I'll post my comment here also:
My favorite newspaper, The Onion, has a good take on the Georgia stickers:
http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4103
[Edit] January 19, 2005
Comments Closed
In order to stop the proliferation of comment spam, the comments on this post have been automatically closed because the post is older than 30 days and the discussion has been inactive for more than 21 days.
Please feel free to your comments to me.
(Top)