Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@wandeljw,

spendius wrote:
There are no half-measures or neutral grounds. You are either for atheism and the eradication of religion from the socialisation process or you are not. And if you are not you are for ID. End of story.
and wandel said
Does this statement summarize your position, spendi?

What a twit is spendi. We need to protect him from sharp objects

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

protect him from sharp objects

Such wit, it's off to the mavens with him.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Its a mathematical fact that more species of a genus means that the genus is able to better wether these violent changes of the environment.

Do your mathematical facts allow for all species to go extinct ? Just how much better weathering are they capable of ?

Quote:

Why would all the species of a genus be clustered in the same niche?

After a catastrophe that may very well be the case. When a new genus is evolving, it may be limited to one species in one niche at first. Many are limited to one type of environment, it is just that environment is in several different locations.

Dont plead incapable of understanding and blame me. Amswer the questions one at a time : 1) So to you an amoeba is just as complex as a human ?
2) Do you consider your answers, not for accuracy, but where an IDer might take them towards ?
3) Do you realise I am an anti-IDer ?

Quote:

Unlike you, I feel quite confident and secure in my skin.

You know me ? I didnt think we had ever met. As for your claims of confidence, why would a confident person bother ?

Quote:

I merely suggested that you read Raup to get an exhaustive review of your sticking point.

The sticking point is yours....reading one book on a complex topic and swallowing everything is hardly a good basis for this discussion.

Quote:

I wasnt, it was a quote from one of the Durants. I sometimes throw in quotes and snips from others writing.

It is usually good manners to attribute other people's work rather than let others mistake their intelligence as being yours.

Quote:

the SPECIFIC theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Yes, I agree, but I have asked you and others where they think the theory begins. If it is to be limited untill life is well developed then it must limit itself to life's processes of change and not claim to be involved with the origins of life as some in this thread have claimed. If evolution is to include the natural selection processes of chemicals as the origins of evolution then I am happy to discuss that aspect too.

Quote:

Also, Im not sure that the molecules were "adapting" (if they were theyd be proto life already.

There is a missing link, if you dont mind me using that term, between simple chemicals needed for life and just before the start of life where chemicals use other chemicals for their "survival". Once we reach the stage of the more complex chemicals needed for life the next step of forming cells is rather easy to understand. But to go from simple to more complex reactions and chemicals whilst still maintaining non-life status is hard to fathom. Some process like evolution is required. If the origins of evolution are included in this missing link/step then it says more about evolution than Darwin knew.

Quote:

Theres too much workd being done in so many fields that its impossible for any one person to spread themselves out thinly .

I assume you mean "There is so much work being done in so many fields that its impossible for any one person to know it all, they would spread themselves out too thinly ". Please note I did not take the opportunity to say anything like :

Quote:

you should really review your posts for sense before you post them. This makes absolutely none to me.......DO you realize that you even do this?

Quote:

If you wish to insist that I should be personally involved to be a better geologist

I have no desire to make you a better geologist. I wish to discuss the important areas of evolution.

Quote:

Id say that you have no idea about what the pile of **** I already have to carry around and use so that I can earn my meals and reputation.

I can only guess.....the requirements for all professionals is quite demanding. You have your work but I am here to discuss evolution and will only discuss geology so far as it has supported evolution based theories.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

There are no half-measures or neutral grounds. You are either for atheism and the eradication of religion from the socialisation process or you are not. And if you are not you are for ID. End of story.

I dont see the world in the same black or white context as you.

Quote:

That would be a turn up eh? The religious are objective and the atheists are as subjective as they can manage without it looking too obvious to the under 10s and the senile.

Atheism is a religion. Look at how they want to treat religious people. It is a witch hunt all over again but in the name of science this time.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Quote:

Why Are There Still Monkeys?

It is to a limited extent, a fair question. It does happen that when a species branches off it is similar to the parent species enough to out compete it and the parent dies out. At the dawn of humans, there were many bipedal apes. Neanderthals may or may not have been humans but they died out very close to the spread of modern humans. Now there is only one bipedal ape, us.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Quote:
So the process by which chemicals become more complex and able to protect themselves, effectively evolving into life, you would call what?
Chemical Evolution?

I am happy with that, but modern animals (including amoeba) still use "chemical evolution" so it is a part of evolution. Are viruses chemical or alive ? Whilst it seems most would say alive, it is not a clear cut easy decision. They may be a left over of the "chemical evolution" just before the start of life.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

spendi really doesn't understand humanity; religion is one of the most common practices of the human species. Here in India, Hinduism is prevailent, and the temples crowded with throngs of people.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

It was all a facade ? The whole near annihilation thing ?

Yes. Mutually assured destruction concentrates minds.

Quote:

How many do you know ? Are you guessing ?

Hundreds. Thousands in the past. Never a mention of this subject.

Quote:

And that doesnt strike you as a means of control......really ???

Blimey Io--you're catching the anti-IDs fast. Of course it is a means of control. That's what I was saying.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

spendius wrote:
There are no half-measures or neutral grounds. You are either for atheism and the eradication of religion from the socialisation process or you are not. And if you are not you are for ID. End of story.
and wandel said
Does this statement summarize your position, spendi?

I answered "yes".

fm then wrote in his normal circular fashion--

Quote:

What a twit is spendi. We need to protect him from sharp objects.

But refrained from explaining why he has come to his conclusion. That I am asserted to be a twit is deemed a sufficient explanation as it has obviously been for many others in his life. And fm couldn't even protect his wife from a sharp object. A rusty nail.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

I dont see the world in the same black or white context as you.

On this issue you would be better if you did. "He who sits in middle of road gets run over by traffic going in both directions." (Confucius).

I know atheism is a religion.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Of course it is a means of control. That's what I was saying.

and you were saying this by contradicting me when I said they control their own......

Quote:

Quote:
The professionals control their own.
No they don't. They are conditioned at great length to having acceptable received opinions.

You would make an excellent IDer......their logic is very similar.....

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Do your mathematical facts allow for all species to go extinct ?

of course, its just less likely with more species, thats all.

Quote:

After a catastrophe that may very well be the case. When a new genus is evolving, it may be limited to one species in one niche at first. Many are limited to one type of environment,

You are saying xactly what Isaid , only in a reversed format. Think of "Buds" and not only linear evolutes

Quote:

As for your claims of confidence, why would a confident person bother ?

DO you know me? Maybe Im into "Extreme Debate". My responses to you had never really been in ridicule until we started the childish back and forth crap. Ive been trying to honestly answer your questions and engage your debate points. If you wish to return to the yellong and stuff, I candisappear cause I dont like when I do that, its not good science.

Quote:

sticking point is yours....reading one book on a complex topic and swallowing everything is hardly a good basis for this discussion.

Well, however, if you merely continue in a thought program that is clearly not part of what modern science says, one needs a start somewhere. I can give you many other references if you dont like Raup.

Quote:

But to go from simple to more complex reactions and chemicals whilst still maintaining non-life status is hard to fathom.

I dont claim to be comfortable with it either it either, and since Im not on a first name basis with the sequence, Id defere to those who are. However, On this subject I do go back to a relevent book now and then to read and "swallow"

Quote:

I am here to discuss evolution and will only discuss geology so far as it has supported evolution based theories.

There is much evidence from many sources that life has been on the planet for a very long time (3.5 to 3.8 BYa) However, the earliest signals of life are only brief chemical signals of "the right stable isotopes) Thats all geology, as is the monitoring of the "paleoatmosphere and cl.imate from the stratigraphic record.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I don't understand your point Io.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

) Do you realise I am an anti-IDer ?

Youve fallen into the spendi "language go round" mmaelstrom. You are "PRO-SCIENCE, our Britgit is "ANTI SCIENCE". I would like us to be accurate on this point since ID has NO scientific evidence other than the bogus claims made by its proponents. STuff like Irreduceable complexity and Specified information are mere dodges to insert the big guy in the sky and what is more isnsideous about ID as opposed to simple "Theistic Evolution" is that ID has the big guy in the sky insert herself at every stage wherein life takes a major change in format.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I am the only pro-science poster on these threads fm. You lot haven't an ounce of science between you. And you proved it already today if more proof is needed. And never more blatantly than when you said I was top of the rankings in rjb's Pick-Um game by random choosing.

You offered that I am a "twit" as an argument and here you are again with another stupid assertion. You cannot lose an argument with such a method. You are always right because you are always right. You're a disgrace to the US educational system of which you are a very typical product. And you insult A2Ker's intelligence by even once adopting such a method never mind doing so on a permanent basis.

Of course ID has no scientific evidence if your definitions and limitations of what science is are operative. Your argument once again is circular. Anti-ID has no evidence either from that point of view.

The ONLY (and I apologise for feeling the need for the emphasis) substance to the discussion about teaching evolution to adolescents is the social consequences of doing so. If you reject that you should be campaigning to close some university departments down. Geology isn't science. It's reportage. Suck it and see stuff. It finds minerals in the hills when the run off water contains them. Gee! It finds oil, according to CBS News, when some old Arab gent tells it where to look. It says that if you push a carpet from each end it will ruck up in the middle. And if you pour water on it the water will fill up the hollows between the rucks.

I'm not talking about any "big guy in the sky" and you know it. I'm talking about preventing the logical and obvious sociological and psychological consequences of atheism. You cannot bring yourself to discuss that matter, presumably from fear of it, and the WHOLE point of education is to get the sociological, psychological and economic consequences of it that we wish to get.

We have traffic lights to ensure the efficient flow of the traffic. If some nitwit jumps them and crashes it doesn't prove traffic lights are a dead loss and should be done away with. All your arguments are as silly as that. If 500 nitwits crash it doesn't prove it either.

The only major change in the format of life in this debate is the switch to atheism which is what you are actually proposing. If Io wants that he's on your side and if he doesn't it's about time he stopped feeding you slow lobs which enable you to ignore the real questions and evade the essentials.

Where did upper-class compassion come from if it wasn't from the Christian religion. What effect did it have on the lower classes to see one of their number have his/her skin whipped off in public prior to being impaled on a stake for the birds to feed off? Being very good boys and girls one might easily assume is the effect. And the intended effect. With nightmares as a booster mechanism. No joy even in sleep. Standard practice before Jesus's message was heard and disseminated. Was it not justifiable to allow Jesus to have a divine origin, and the obvious and logical capacity to work miracles which derive from such an origin, in order to get from that to this even if it has taken a long time and been a bumpy road? Keep whining about the bumps is back seat driver's drivel.

Who cares if it is a fairy story when the dividends have been so wonderful for those of us of humble birth. Why don't you tell all the kids there's no Father Christmas and take the joy out of their lives? Taking one for the team, and a very easy one too, is not on your agenda is it? Your big fat ego is in the way.

And prove Jesus was not of divine origin. Prove that the Sermon on the Mount was not a template for our civilisation. The only argument you can have that makes sense is that our civilisation is shite and was all a big mistake and get on board with the behaviourists. A leading behaviourist, Skinner probably, said that a civilisation which does without torture is doomed.

Get on message then. You're a ladies' coffee morning atheist as things stand. Piss-balling about in the interstices of your desires.

We are the luckiest people who ever lived and it's down to Jesus or all that name means. If you lot have your way we will be the luckiest people who ever did live by the time the world ends because modern instruments of power will never allow another Jesus. He would soon be spotted and "retrained". If only for his own good like in 1984.

Do you want an atheist society? Yes or no. "You either got faith or you got unbelief--there ain't no neutral ground." (Bob Dylan). That woke me up. Not because of who said it but because of what it means.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

And prove Jesus was not of divine origin.

You cannot even prove that a Historical Jesus even existed and was not a recasting of the old Horus legends.

Otherwise, your contributions are mere masturbation. Youve apparently a really low self esteem since you have to keep trying to remind me oif how intelligent and "science minded " you are.
Time for Xanax and a beer or three.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You cannot even prove that a Historical Jesus even existed and was not a recasting of the old Horus legends.

I know I can't. That's why I added the phrase "and all that name means". But the evidence is that a message came out of Judea which was disseminated, slowly and often with opposition, and caught fire among the lower orders which was much more numerous than the upper orders and on which the upper orders relied for survival. And "IF" it was true the souls of the upper orders were going to be eternally fucked if they carried on as they were doing and there is no reason to think they wouldn't have carried on as they were doing if that message had not given them pause for thought. Providing a myth to give that message some heavy chutzpah is something we should all be very grateful for. Unless the upper-orders had such a seed of doubt planted in their minds the ups and downs of the Roman Empire would have continued forever. Any changes would be at evolution's pace. And if sowing such a doubt takes a big story to do it right so be it.

You're just having a free ride on the back of Christian accomplishment. You'll be wanting to wear your underpants outside of your trousers next. Science can talk its own way in the world my friend. The last thing it wants or needs is you lot going in to bat for it.

And anybody who sees low-esteem in my prose knows **** all about literary expression.

And you said I was anti-science. Am I not even allowed to take issue with that without being accused of keep trying to remind you that I'm the only one on here pro-science. Of course I'm going to remind you if you say something like that. Otherwise whatever you say stands. Something I bet you would wish for if you threw a coin into Ye Olde Wishing Well. With you silly fuckers driving around the wishing wells I would wish that wishing wells were abolished.

I hope Io is chuffed at the company he is keeping.

1 Reply

What it meant, as Gibbon points out somewhere, is that Christian virtues became a route for the ambitious. The other routes remained but were more and more leading to the jailhouse or, at the least, to forms of milder ostracism. The bet on salvation paid in this world as well as the next.

I know enough about the sociology and psychology of nostalgia fm to understand your building a currach and looking for pre-industrial celtic emblems for the background of a portrait of one of your ancestors. Such things are not congruent with your views as expressed on here.

0 Replies

KENTUCKY UPDATE

Quote:

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear announces creationism theme park to open in 2014, with $250 million impact
(By Stephenie Steitzer • Louisville Courier-Journal • December 1, 2010)

FRANKFORT, Ky. — Gov. Steve Beshear said Wednesday that a creationism theme park, expected to open in Northern Kentucky in 2014, would have a $250 million annual impact on the state's economy.

Ark Encounter, which will feature a 500-foot-long replica of Noah's Ark containing live animals such as juvenile giraffes, is projected to cost $150 million and create 900 jobs, Beshear announced at a press conference in the Capitol.

“Make no mistake about it, this is a huge deal,” he said.

The park, to be located on 800 acres in Grant County off Interstate 75, also will include a Walled City, live animal shows, a replica of the Tower of Babel, a 500-seat special-effects theater, an aviary and a first-century Middle Eastern village.

The project is a collaboration between Ark Encounters LLC, a for-profit company in Springfield, Mo., and Answers in Genesis, a non-profit organization that runs the Creation Museum in Boone County.

Developers are seeking state tax incentives under the Kentucky Tourism Development Act. If they qualify — and Beshear indicated they would — they could receive as much as $37.5 million in incentives.

Under the law, developers can recover up to 25 percent of the cost of a project. The state returns to developers the sales tax paid by visitors on admission tickets, food, gift sales and lodging costs. Developers have 10 years to reach the 25 percent threshold.

Beshear said he does not believe the tax incentives would violate the principle of church-state separation because the law establishing the incentives doesn't discriminate among religions and was not created for the purpose of benefiting the creationism theme park.

“We have reviewed this from a legal standpoint and if the application complies with our laws there is nothing remotely unconstitutional about a for-profit organization coming in and investing $150 million to create jobs in Kentucky and bring tourism to Kentucky,” he said.

When asked if he would hold a similar press conference if a Muslim- or atheist-themed park were planned, Beshear said, “Whatever groups want to come in here and talk about investing and creating tourist attractions, we are certainly open to talking with them.”

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Why my heart is warmed to doneness to see that we shall soon have a center of all things CREATION in the wonderful state of Kentucky. Imagine, soon, with a trip from NY to Cinncinatti, you land at the Ky airport and then can wend your way through Biblical truths before having to go downtown to the Gommorha on the Ohio River to feed the minions of mammon.

We bless you "Dr" Ham.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know