61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 07:47 am
@farmerman,
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb97/hoofster123/spendy/duckfall1lf2.jpg

Follow Mama.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 06:05 am
@spendius,
cute. The relevance of that must have flown over my head. Do you wish to explain your reference to the ducklings discovery of the principles of permeability and gravity.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 09:11 am
@farmerman,
Okay--Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters.

Will that do?

You know, I sometimes feel sorry for the NCSE and the professors and other big long-titled persons it rounds up to espouse its cause.

Their task seems to be to get angry, and pompous with it, everytime they are approached by an editor or his niece for some copy to fit between the adverts. And give vent to sarcasms they have picked up in the company they keep. Deploying "flying spaghetti monsters" signifies a level of company I'm not prepared to keep. And when they try to compare things like gravity to evolution theory as they search for alternative arguments it becomes quite obvious that they haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about.

Do they never think of their image? Can they not imagine what the public think of people who speak and write in that superior manner. All the time. Do they really think that all they need to do is learn to say "logical analysis" and "critical thinking" and "academia" and we are going to do anything other than laugh especially when they string them all together with "scientific method" in one long sentence of the utterest gibberish which they don't even understand themselves. They consider themselves "fit" and thus are into the survival of the fittest. It's just an authentic feeling they have. Once they get a reserved parking space with their title on it it is felt as right and proper. Thus they should be the ones to lead us to that crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.

They forget that "fit" is an assertion. They can't Limbo dance so fitly. Or score a century on debut at Lord's. I heard that some of then have trouble getting the top off a boiled egg.

They forget why the journalist contacted them in the first place. A lot of long titles makes articles easier to write you see. What they are noted for often runs to a few lines from the computerised files taken from one of the PR papers they have put out themselves originally. Nothing personal.

One might think, as a hard-pressed taxpayer, one of which is born every minute, that they would get on with their science and stop lording their superiority over us and insulting us. They are on more than the minimum wage after all and we don't pay that to have God mocked.

Why don't they lighten up. Show us that there is at least a chance we won't be wrung out dry if we allow them power over us and to bring "logical analysis" and "critical thinking" and "academia" and "scientific method" to bear down on our way of life.

When the purge of the lily-livered supporters, whose task it was to make it possible, had been completed.

They could explain lingerie shops.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 10:26 am
@spendius,
no, their positions are merely to promote GOOD scientific education, specifically to make sure that "Boogeyman" science isnt taking a place in the schools. If you wish to denegrate or ridicule that, and at the same time quietly support the Creationists and IDjits, you are certainly entitled. Its just that you m ake your position transparent to everyone.

In other words, what you preach and what you do are opposing concepts. Thats ok, I, at least, suspect that you were never a friend of Bill.

Your total ignorance of the history and the facts supporting the Cretins and IDjits make your posts equally entertaining. Like when you spout on about what the NCSE, is , according to you, really trying to do. When the very same position was REALLY espoused by the Creation Science ELement in the 1920's. Their belief was that , the best way to confront evidence was to shout it down. While NCSE tries to hold honest debates, the CReationists and IDjits dont want to have anything to do with a level playing field. They only want to hold debates in Evangelical Church BAsemenst and Fellowship Halls.
Your precious spendi. ALL QWET, but still precious.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 12:54 pm
@farmerman,
Me--denigrate scientists. Never.

But I will prod away at these preachers wande quotes until they pluck up the courage and do their duty and tell us what the application of critical analysis, logical thinking and scientific method by academia to our way of life will result in. As Reich correctly observed, in the post you all ignored, the truth calls forth more truth. It is intellectually dishonest to ignore that just as it was ignoring the post.

And Reich's idea of emptying a concept of all meaning is easily seen in your use of "GOOD". We are all in favour of the GOOD. Do you think we are in favour of the BAD? It's a question of which is which. That's what the debate is about you silly moo-cow. Declaring GOOD to be on your side is what every snake oil salesman does. It is, in ci's definition "garbage".

Questioning those who seek to promote radical agendes is my position. And the position under fire here is extremely radical. It might wear pretty frilly pink knickers now but give it a chance.

My position has always been transparent. I'm a democrat with a small d.

Very few people are unable to come to terms with Bogeymen. You have switched direction as an evasion. Nobody on here, and in most places, is trying to promote "Boogeyman science. We are questioning evolution theory in schools for all kids. I am not saying it shouldn't take place either. I am saying do you know what you are doing when you open that can of worms. It's you who is in the frame. Not Boogeyman science. That's your delusion. A convenient one it is too. It makes your arguments simple and if the argument is simple will you explain all the controversy over the last 150 years. It is far more likely that the controversy has validity than that you can cut through it all and suddenly produce a solution using words you don't define. Just bask in the glow of.

I'll admit to total ignorance regarding the "facts" the Creationists and IDers often use to support their case. There are none of that type. There are others though but you turn away from discussions of those.

I do not for one moment think that the NCSE holds honest debates in public. And how they express themselves gives me pause for thought. They are obviously average at that and their science is largely a matter of economic surplus and a ready-made body of knowlege and technique they can only tinker with. Like having a Nobel prize means you have to have a winner so having labs and hierarchies means you have to have people in them doing something impressive. Which they can talk up using words hardly anybody understands. And Bertie Russell said to avoid them.

A true NCSE would give serious consideration to the psychosomatic realm. Even ros did that when he lost his bearings on the hysteria case he alleged. It was the first thing that came into his head.

And confronting evidence by shouting it down is not as bad as hiding from it altogether. Both sides engage in both tactics it seems to me. And in keeping their meetings to themselves. At least Fellowship Halls are open to the public but I doubt NCSE debates are. They issue statements from on high.

As do you effemm.

Bill who?

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 02:13 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
At least Fellowship Halls are open to the public but I doubt NCSE debates are. They issue statements from on high.



Is it difficult navigating with your head up your ass like that?. That is so much bullshit. The rest of your post was merely masturbatory .

As for Reich, he was examined at great detail (or that amount of detail warranted). Your method of examining evolution is to espouse IDjicy . I shall call you names as you continue. If your position has NO evidence to support it other than some religious crap, then you need to be exposed to the light. So far all you do is try to dip and dive and youve never yet made any sense.

Others may appreciate you for your turn of phrase, Id much rather you spent some time on the material content of your phrases. You are the type section for the difference between substance and format. Needless to say, Id welcome some substance from ye.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 03:18 pm
@farmerman,
Are Evangelical Church Basements and Fellowship Halls not open to the public?


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 04:07 pm
@spendius,
If it has substance, it's always "open."
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 04:33 pm
@farmerman,
I think there were 7 assertions in that post effemm.

I am not in the least bothered if people who don't know these two threads are impressed by it. People who have taken the trouble to familiarise themselves with the threads won't have any trouble determining who lacks substance. There may well not be any but that's not important either. I don't rest any case on one post or even a few. I'm making the same case now that I was when I started. And long before that in other spheres.

There was substance in my remark about this controversy being 150 year's old and reaching the higher centres of learning and that being evidence of the controversy having valid roots. And that the suggestion that you can clear it all up with a few assertions, which could well be self-interested, is ludicrous.

Only when you realise that the dispute is one to be taken seriously and is extremely complex and not amenable to being settled with a few glib phrases one might hear in any pub or bus queue, and which are usually meaningless, only then, will you have any interest in substance.

I haven't looked in the mirror yet so I feel safe to pop off to the pub for my medicine. (And there's substance in even that sentence for anybody who cares to look.)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 05:39 pm
moving on ...
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 06:08 pm
@farmerman,
Let the record show that the witness slunk out of the courtroom muttering.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 06:11 pm
@spendius,
cmon back, i wont bite.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 06:26 pm
@farmerman,
A lady once said that to me in so many words. It's a very old trick.

We got to discussing life without sin in the pub. We decided it was hopeless. That we would have been all done and dusted by 19. Jaded beyond recovery.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 05:41 am
@spendius,
Quote:
We got to discussing life without sin in the pub
. It is almost impossible not to engage in a little sin while in a pub.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 08:15 am
That drunken clown manages to torpedo every legitimate thread about evolution, and you just help him out by talking to him . . . i'm sure there are any number of low dives in your immediate area in which you can find gin-soaked idiots with delusions of adequacy with whom to converse . . .
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 09:01 am
Quote:
Creationism"remember the principle of falsifiability
(Didier Raoult, The Lancet, Volume 372, 20 December 2008)

The question that Michael Reiss, from the UK's Royal Society, posed about teaching creationism as an alternative scientific theory should be examined carefully to avoid an evolutionist"creationist front-to-front war. Basically, we need to examine the frontier between science and belief (faith) to evaluate where creationism can be taught. This question has become especially important because the former Republican vice-presidential candidate in the USA, Sarah Palin, proposed that creationism be taught in schools. One of the current problems is not to fall into scientism, the religion of science. If we defend scientific theories with faith and Darwin as a prophet, we will rehabilitate the conflict of evolutionism versus creationism. A scientific theory is a way to understand the world according to current knowledge. Such theory allows the creation of new data, in accordance with the theory, to evolve (ie, to integrate unpredicted data), and that such data should be falsifiable.

A scientific theory should lead to experiences that provide new data predicted by the theory. As for any biologist, most of my scientific work is based on the Darwinian theory of evolution. The Mendelian revolution, the discovery of the genetic code, and massive genomic sequencing have largely confirmed many aspects of the theory. The dramatic similarity between genomes of human beings and apes, predicted by the theory, is indeed very convincing evidence.

On the other hand, science evolves and scientific theories have to change according to new observations and concepts. It would be unscientific to consider any single word of Darwin as definitively true and to study this like the Bible. By definition, if a theory is totally valid and uncontradicted after a long time, it is probably not a scientific theory. Many genomic data have not been predicted by Darwinian theory. The role of environment on the modulation of gene expression, the result of the conflict of genes inherited from mother and father in the phenotype of human beings, genome reduction associated with specialisation, and the selfish DNA theory promote the idea that species are finally bags of genes grouped for a moment, to be conveniently duplicated together. Other exceptions to Darwinian theory are genetic manipulation by human beings (directed versus natural evolution), and selection of genes rather than species (for antibiotic resistance, some genes allow a resistance jump from one species to another). Moreover, demonstration that Mendelian theory is incomplete (it excludes lateral gene-transfer) and that natural selection cannot explain all evolution (neutral evolution) makes this theory scientific as it continues to live and evolve. These exceptions to the general rule are showing that we are not speaking of a faith but of a scientific theory that will change to interpret new data.

Finally, a scientific theory should be falsifiable. Falsifiability has been the great contribution of Karl Popper in delineating science from religion. If you cannot imagine data that can convince you that your theory is wrong, you are are not being scientific. Interestingly, Popper had difficulty in his early time to see Darwinism as a scientific theory, because it was not testable at that time. However, now, if somebody reported the genome of a 1-million-year-old humanoid fossil and found that it is exactly the same as that of a contemporary human being, the theory of evolution of species would be completely changed. If the sequence of a contemporary animal has no similarity with other living animals, we need to change the theory that predicts a common ancestor of animals. Therefore the theory of evolution is indeed falsifiable.

Creationism does not predict any new findings, is not evolving (according to new findings), and is not falsifiable. I doubt that creationists can design any study that could eventually lead to a change in their belief. If such a concept cannot apply, if nothing can change your theory, you are, by consequence, in the area of belief, tautology (in its logical sense), faith, or religion, whatever you want to name it.

As a consequence, creationism should be taught among religions but not among sciences, as it is not refutable by any fact or experience"but please do not teach evolution as a religion.

I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 09:16 am
@Setanta,


Quote:
That drunken clown manages to torpedo every legitimate thread about evolution, and you just help him out by talking to him . . . i'm sure there are any number of low dives in your immediate area in which you can find gin-soaked idiots with delusions of adequacy with whom to converse . . .


Set, my dear,


The viewers have the choice of deciding the usefulness or otherwise of my contributions to these threads. I know you would like to have the power to do it for them and guide them into the sunny uplands wherein you evidently are stationed but, alas, you're pissing into the wind as usual.

And what a drunken clown says, or even a gin-soaked idiot with delusions of adequacy, is judged on the meaning of it and not on him having those characteristics you assert him to have.

One presumes that your pejoritive use of "low dives" is supposed to suggest to us that you only frequent "high dives" in which the clientele are all a bunch of po-faced, puritanical, presbyterian snobs constantly and soberly aware of their own dignity, a fate considered by some to be akin to a living death, and, unfortunately, have to contend with ignoring the fart enhanced atmosphere as it is well known that po-faced, puritanical, presbyterian sober snobs constantly aware of their own dignity fart at the usual average, which is 35 times per day on an orderly diet, an unlikely scenario I know, have skid marks in their trolleys and sometimes get "took short" in trying circumstances.

The low dives are the recruiting grounds for those brave fighting men who are at this very moment risking their lives to help us maintain the life we have become accustomed to and it is to those low dives that they will return if they remain unscathed.

It ought to be quite obvious that po-faced, puritanical, presbyterian snobs constantly and soberly aware of their own dignity and gathered in little knots of humanity around an embroidered shawl they are admiring would not feel that those men had anything useful to say to them and would simply dismiss them as "drunken clowns" and "gin-soaked idiots with delusions of adequacy."

Most likely using the same unoriginal set of cliches they have always used and which have been passed down the generations since the very first stirrings of human speech. They have a tacit agreement to never, ever mention how boring this is. Which adds to the boredom and frustration causing the usual jerky movements here there and everywhere.

Low dives are frequented by two types of people. There are the ones who have always frequented them and the ones, a minority, who have arrived in them as the only escape from the living death which they have glimpsed at close quarters within the milieux aforementioned known as the "high dive".

And your very presence here indicates that the thread is not "torpedoed" as you assert it to be. So that was a load of bollocks as well.

And people rarely frequent dives, high or low or in between--that's cheap and naff po-faced, puritanical, presbyterian snobs constantly and soberly aware of their own dignity and gathered in little knots of humanity around an embroidered shawl-- that are not in their "immediate area". In fact I'm at a loss to know how it could be done. One wouldn't go looking for gin-soaked idiots with delusions of adequacy in Nairobi, say. The phrase was padding in aid of deluding you into believing you had composed a well structured, coherent and responsible post when it was, in fact, "garbage", and equivalent to a pulling out of the tongue that you see girls do when they are lost for words.

The famed Left Bank was full of very low dives. The world is full of them. The Gut in Malta. Greenwich Village was a bit posh. The 4-year long Council of Trent had to be disbanded on account of the lowness.

Will you be leafing through the "Spring Collection" catalogue over Xmas Set?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 09:21 am
@Setanta,
and a blessed Chrismas to you set. I was merely attempting to remind our UK correspondent that hes not as adequate a writer as he imagines himself to be.
If I communicate with him (Ignoring him got to be a bore cause good logical exchanges take thought and responding to spendi does not).

If you have him pon ignore, you miss his awful turns of phrase for which he keeps patting himself on the back. Maybe with SHira back, spendi can get clobbered by someone who is a vituperative pro. I may be wrong but I think spendi likes getting abused.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 09:28 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
If the sequence of a contemporary animal has no similarity with other living animals, we need to change the theory that predicts a common ancestor of animals. Therefore the theory of evolution is indeed falsifiable.



HA, That was my very point said alternatively. I said , "lets do a falsifiablity fest, where we see whether (as a falsification precept) mammoths exist in early strata. Then, as Creationism says, we SHOULD see mammoths in early strata or else Creationism is falsifiable.
EVo passes the falsifiability rule, while Creationism is merely shown to be FALSE."


Popper ultimately did come to grips with falsifiability because he recognized (after having been shown by guys like M. Kay and J.Rodgers, and F. Dobzhansky) that the concepts that underpin evolution are falsifiable (THE EARTH IS OLD< IF IT WASNT THEN ALL ISOTOPES SHOULD CRAP OUT THE SAME WAY. THE STRATA ARE SUPERIMPOSED-IF THEY WERENT THEN EVERYTHING HAPPENED IN A BRIEF TIME WITH NO SIGNIFICANT TEMPORAL SEQUENCES) etc.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 09:49 am
@farmerman,
First of all effemm, it is pointless blessing Set's Christmas. It constitutes, scientifically, pretending to have powers acting at a distance. Or possibly a cliched attempt to ingratiate yourself with a fellow anti-IDer and keep the little ducks together. In the 3rd pic you were the big Duck and I was the little one paying attention.

I do not see the point of writing at all unless one considers oneself an adequate writer. It matters not what others may think. And both form and substance are to be considered with the latter's priority. It is not a question of what one imagines.

And everybody must be well aware that you take no thought when responding to my posts. That's plain to see. And it's an assertion that you do take thought when responding to others. Flattering yourself again. The substance of all your posts is what a great guy you are. The form is terrible man. Excruciating.

The great thing about being abused is that you have been granted permission to abuse back. There will be no knock-out blow. The verdict will be a points one. That's on topic. Evolution.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 06/30/2024 at 10:13:04