0
   

Evolution Is Impossible Dot Com

 
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 03:04 pm
Spendius,

sure, there is nothing wrong with tossing a few back while doing research. my father is a pretty famous biologist also and I'd be lying if I said he didn't take a few beers with him into the woods and nab a few birds...because yes, we are all human.

like I said, I didnt think there was anything wrong with your original comment...but in your 'defense' you have continusouly downtrodden on their achievements and the significance of these awards

the reality is that these types of awards ARE significant achievements and should not be taken lightly. there are thousands of well educated devoted people spending their lives all attempting to publish in competetive academic environments, and getting published under good journals is an achievement...and so is recieving prestigious awards

you can't fool me with your mumbo jumbo, almost everyone in my immediate and extended family is an academic and I have a lot of respect for the academic community.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 03:35 pm
stuh wrote-

Quote:
almost everyone in my immediate and extended family is an academic and I have a lot of respect for the academic community.


I would undoubtedly have a similar respect had I had the good fortune to have been born of academic stock.Unfortunately I come from a line of complete idiots on both sides much like those writers I have the greatest admiration for.


Quote:
like I said, I didnt think there was anything wrong with your original comment...but in your 'defense' you have continusouly downtrodden on their achievements and the significance of these awards


I certainly had not intention of continuously downtreading anything.I was merely suggesting that one ought to bear in mind a certain understandable proclivity in human nature before one swallowed the bait and the hook.I hope you are not assuming that a certain amount of plagiarism doesn't take place in order to find forms of wording which have a tendency to present the author in the best possible light.Your earlier quote had quite a few word formulations which I have seen many times before.I suppose they do work better with those who were familiarised with such things from an early age.

Hey stuh-I'm half kidding.As farmerman sussed I am a bit of a comic but I usually sit down as evolution works on the principle of the conservation of energy and I'm a serious evolutionist.If I could lie down I would do so.It amuses me to see "evolutionists" flying all round the world,with all that entails,when they could be lounging on a couch reading a good book in a nice warm room and a maid bringing in refreshments from time to time and saving $000s and not having to have injections to save getting the dreaded lurgie.It is as if they are trying to wipe themselves out.I fear the sloth may outlive humankind.Like Goethe suggested.He was a biologist you know.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 04:18 pm
Actually-I'm quite polite.

I could easily have substituted for the phrase "with all that entails" an elaborate description of what it does entail and just as easily a more poetic description of the lounge and the conveniences therein when one hasn't spent all one's money being a fundamentalist counter-evolutionist.

Perhaps another opportunity will come when I have a little more time.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 06:24 pm
Spendi. methinks your concern about how scientists interrelate and how honesty prevails in the various crafts that comprise the sciences, is more of a CReationists apology than a scientists.
There is competition and there is cooperation. There is fraud and some deception. However, these matters are easily self policing.
1 Experiments are easily redone and calculations recalculated

2Evidence is available for inspection and Peer review

Its a wide open bar and nothing fools the masses for long. Try to be as "equally disposed" when observing the available research of the creationists (In fact Ill buy you a barrel of whatever suds you prefer, if you can point to any modern research at all) PS quote mining and erroneous attacks dont count as research, whereas correct revisits of existing evidence do count
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 06:27 pm
cant think of one can you? I asked real life for examples of where Creationist thinking had been used to advance anything in the sciences (besides manuals of pedagogy). He tried to slip Newton in as a "Creationist". We said no thank you, and Im still waiting from him.

I dont think hell be able to come up with any at all.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 08:01 pm
Re: Evolution Is Impossible Dot Com
gungasnake wrote:


Nice URL. They should have called it www.we-say-it-so-it-must-be-true.com or www.help-me-I'm-scared-of-reality-and-in-deep-denial.com
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 01:21 am
Links aren't working.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 01:36 am
I think thats part-and-parcel of the point rosborne was making :winK;

Howya doin', Einherjar - ain't bumped into you for a while (my fault, no doubt). Good to see ya.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 03:58 am
Oh, I figured they'd lead to some parody or other.

There are various reasons why I haven't been around a lot recently. Chief among them is that I sort of buned out haunting more local forums leading up to the elections back in Norway. I've around a bit lately, mostly just reading, but I'm set to disappear again as my exams are drawing ever closer. I predict I'll be back in force after christmas though.

Othervise doing quite well.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 06:40 am
The focus of the website is to stand against evolution. They claim that they are not shills for ID or Creation foundations. They dont claim any 501-3c status , so the website is not tax exempt. They do ask for donations to keep it running.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 07:12 am
Einherjar wrote:
Links aren't working.


That's because I made them up Wink
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 10:06 am
To be honest, I feel it is our middle schools and high schools that are to blame for this uprising in ID.

There are certain aspects of science which should be universally explained as part of a basic education...one of those things is evolution. I was never taught about evolution in school...perhaps it was offhandedly mentioned, but there were never teachers explaining it.

There are a lot of people with college educations that are completely unaware of the evidence for evolution. Everyone understands the concept of small scale evolution but it is not so easy to grasp macro speciation...considering all the widespread lack of knowledge, the most education that college students who don't major in this field are getting is simply from uneducated conversation.

Why should we be surprised when people do not actively seek out the untaught, and instead jump on the bandwagon of easy explanations?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 11:52 am
stuh-

You are back to basics there.

Most kids wouldn't understand it and wouldn't learn it.A few would.It is not an easy subject and the serious critiques of Darwin (Spengler say) make confidence in teaching it something of a matter of faith.IDers and Creationists in general don't understand the serious critiques.I'm not confident I do.I think Spengler is focussed on evolution science being based on a small number of dead forms (the become) and ignoring "possibilities" of the becoming.Just as there are a large number of possible combinations of chemicals which could exist but don't.Evolution is a causal explanation of dead forms which might be teleological.fm could explain it better than I can.I'm more interested in social effects.

It is an elite/masses problem.The subject is outside the scope of the interest and understanding of the masses.The question therefore,as I see it,is what to teach the masses to help them be happy and efficient.Which opium to dole out.Now I know you guys over there don't like such notions but that is really neither here nor there.The high priests of modern scientific knowledge are an elite and the gulf between that elite and the masses gets bigger every year.It is not bridgeable.And the elite itself is highly specialised and each member of it knows very little about other specialisations.

Politicians and judges have the difficult task of mediating but even they have got to the point of having to take expert advice which they may very well not understand.They take a view in the end and at elections the voters take a view and live with it.The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

A possible analogy is when a five year old asks where he comes from.All scientific answers beg more questions.Is the kid better off with the stork or being found under a bush.As I understand it the aboriginal population in Australia when we arrived had not connected fornication with babies in 12,000 years.This is quite rational if they were fornicating twice a day and babies appeared every three years which they would if suckling lasts that long.Their shamans may have had the esoteric knowledge.In a similar way kids destined for mundane jobs might be better off with the fairytale or,what is more important,more efficient.And maybe not.Is that patronising?

Answers on a postcard please.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 01:49 pm
Spendius,

it is not beyond the capacity of a teenager's understanding

even if they didn't understand, they would understand that it is being explicitly taught as fact...and not left as a topic that is open and under question, as it appears many people think that it is

you seem to be of the opinion that the school system has no responsibility to impart any knowledge for knowledge's sake
0 Replies
 
Enray
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 02:00 pm
School's
Quote:
Most kids wouldn't understand it and wouldn't learn it.A few would


It depends on what school you're talking about. At most public schools the students still believe that making good grades and learning is bad, whereas in most private schools, the teachers urge students to learn outside the classroom.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 03:29 pm
In public schools they are taking calculus, bio, physics, chemistry...these arent light subjects, it's not like the kids go out and buy new brains after high school for thier freshman year of college
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 05:13 pm
i went to a public highschool, and studied most of those subjects. i suppose i was deprived of latin instruction by not going to a private school. on the other hand, i wouldn't be at all surprised if there are public schools in affluent communities where latin is in the curriculum. in short, the idea that "most" public schools, or all private schools, are the same is hopelessly naive.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 05:53 pm
latin was in the curriculum of my beatnik highschool!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 06:28 pm
Did it not make you wish you were dead?It did me.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 06:34 pm
surely not that bad, spendius. i had to take industrial drafting.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 07:23:05