Intelligent Design/Evolution War:4-20-06 Georgia Governor signs Laws putting Bible Class in all schools and Commandments

[wylecoyote]

Yes, thank you.

 

[wylecoyote]

Cerb... the stickers in the books said it themselves...

From the article that started this thred:

The stickers were put in the books by school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

(my emphasis)

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Sunner
I'm actually kinda looking forward to having you, you seem like the kind of person one could actually discuss with

Be careful, you probably just haven't gotten to the part where he accuses you of not having read the bible for no reason at all. (I'm not joking either).

Ah, you're just bitter. When you claim it says something other than what it actually does say, then of course I am going to question your scholarship of it.

Sunner, anytime. Have one for me.

Originally posted by: Tommunist
Just give up infohawk - you can't count on people to actually read through the thread and/or understand what evolution is and what it is not. Just goes to show why evolution needs to be taught in schools since so few people understand it.

I know what evolution is, my friend. It is a practical, rational theory based on fact and observation for explaining how relatively simple life became extremely complex life. Nothing more.

It is the individuals (most of whom taught in schools) who believe that evolution provides proof that God does not exist and that religion is entirely wrong who are in fact the ones who don't know what evolution is.

Well evolution itself (in that it is occuring) is a fact - whether you want to believe the theory that it is what brought about the nice variety of life we have is the theory part (and I mean theory in the scientific sense here).

What individuals in schools are saying that evolution provides proof that God does not exist? That's the more rediculous thing I've ever heard b/c

1. religion isn't discussed in science class.
2. it only disproves God's existence if you are completely inflexible in your view of God in which case I think you are incredibly ignorant and silly.

but back to my intention - I had no clue what level of understanding you had of evolution nor do I care all that much. But as this thread continues I see how pointless it is to try to explain this all to some people despite the fact that I'm now doing what I recommended that infohawk not bother to do

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
Cerb... the stickers in the books said it themselves...

From the article that started this thred:

The stickers were put in the books by school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

(my emphasis)

the bold part is at the very least misleading as it's not clear if it means the origin of the original living thing(s) or just subsequent living things after the first living thing(s).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
Holy sh!t, I don't know where to begin Vic.

First of all... there is a confusion running rampant, which you are propogating.

Evolution, today, now, in modern species, IS PROVEN AS FACT AND NOT AS A THEORY in innumerable scientific studies, both small and large scale, in controlled and uncontrolled environments, with different species, by different scientists, published in a myriad of scholarly and peer-reviewed journals all around the mofo-ing world.

Cerb- something being observable fact doesn't "still make it a theory" as you state. It becomes strangely enough, a fact.

That being said, evolution as an explanation for the origin of man, IS A THEORY.

Please read the above paragraph one more time so it'll get through your skull.

Let me bring your attention to something else Vic... you wrote

"You believe in aliens? Then you have faith. There is no proof of alien life, simply conjecture and and a dubious equation without definable variables. Once again, more religious-style beliefs declared as "science".

This statement is laughable. Read my post again paying careful attention to the last sentence... "our intellect may be vast in the scope of our earth, but completely amoebic compared to an alien intellegence. Once again, we have no way of knowing..." In fact, to avoid inane posts from people like you, I said "we have no way of knowing". All I was trying to say is that I disagree with the statement that humans are "near perfect".

You also wrote...

"Countless species all over the world kill their own kind. In fact, that's one of the hardest things about fish breeding. And the human practice of war is not contrary to evolution, it is crucially necessary to evolution. Do you and Infohawk even have a clue about what evolution is?" (Yes we do. But referring to the early paragraph in this post, the one you should have read twice, you don't. )

Firstly, countless species all over the world DO NOT KILL MEMBERS OF THE SAME SPECIES LIKE HUMANS DO. Sure, some may in rare, dire situations of food, shelter, mating, etc... But not because one Chimp believes in one God and goes after the Chimp that believes in another.

Second of all, since when IN THE HISTORY OF TIME, has war been "crucially necessary" to evolution?!!? Are you kidding me? Millions upon millions of speices evolve, even as we speak, and nowhere is war a "cruical" element. It's non-existent. Just think about it. If that's not too much to ask.

Also, your fish example? Breeding fish in captivity, in confined, unnatural spaces... hmmm... well, lemme ask you something bro... ever thought if those fish do the same things in the WILD, WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE!?!

You know what, never mind. Forget everything I just wrote. You're right. Good job. I stand corrected.

Do me a favor and don't have kids.

Considering how wrong you are about everything you have posted here, I should ask the same of you.

To begin with, I never once said that evolution now and in modern time and context was anything other than a factual theory, nor did I ever say that I didn't believe it. Your paranoia is showing I think.

As for other species killing each other, something you for some reason think doesn't exist, I would like to call you attention to the fact that Dr. Jane Goodall, the noted primate biologist, studied extensively the chimpanzee behavior of not only killing each other, but outright organized (although primitive) warfare and murder. In fact, she observed that roughly 1/3rd of all male chimpanzees die from being murdered by one of their own kind. I'm so confident that you'll find I'm right about this that I invite you to google it on your own.

Now, the type of fish I was referring to, known as Cichlids, are also cannibalistic in the wild. Google on.

Next, several species of felines, particularly lions and feral housecats, have a very interesting murderous behavior. It seems that a mother with kittens will not come into estrus (heat). So a male that finds a mother with kittens will attempt to murder all her kittens in order to bring about her estrus. Oddly enough, Disney's movie "The Lion King" fictionalized what is in fact a very common lion behavior. Once a challenging male has knocked off and killed the reigning alpha male in the pride, he will then kill all the cubs in order to have all the pride's females go into estrus so that they give birth to his progeny (and not raise the fallen male's progeny).

As for war and its necessity in human evolution, once again I suggest you study. Lacking predators, our evolutionary makeup requires that we cull ourselves somehow. In addition, war tends to splash gene pool "waters" from one pool to another. Historians have noted that every war tends to end with a "baby boom" 9 months afterwards.

All this aside, I think I can see from evolutionalist standpoint why you would not want me to have kids. Your denial of the basic realities of evolution (which you claim to believe in) represents your genetic inferiority

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
Well evolution itself (in that it is occuring) is a fact - whether you want to believe the theory that it is what brought about the nice variety of life we have is the theory part (and I mean theory in the scientific sense here).

What individuals in schools are saying that evolution provides proof that God does not exist? That's the more rediculous thing I've ever heard b/c

1. religion isn't discussed in science class.
2. it only disproves God's existence if you are completely inflexible in your view of God in which case I think you are incredibly ignorant and silly.

but back to my intention - I had no clue what level of understanding you had of evolution nor do I care all that much. But as this thread continues I see how pointless it is to try to explain this all to some people despite the fact that I'm now doing what I recommended that infohawk not bother to do

You wouldn't think it so pointless if you didn't continue ASSuming that I believe things that I am actually arguing against.

 

[Infohawk]

I think a lot of confusion here comes from the definition of theory.

Some people think theory means fantasy or purely hypothetical (as in it's just a theory). That is more of a colloqualism. The more applicable -- scientific-- definition is that a theory, like the theory of gravity, can be fact (again without going into the metaphysical meaning of fact). Yes you have theories like string theory that is not yet truth and is not yet testable but evolution is not that kind of untested theory. Thus, saying that "evolution is just a theory" is completely misleading. It is as much truth as gravity is. Both can be observed and tested, even though they are theories.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Cerb
A theory requires a hypothesis that has varied evidence to support it.
Observational facts over the years would qualify.
Without the ability to imperically(sp) predict the course of evolution, it is at the stage of being a theory. As already stated, much like gravity.

How does being proven with facts bring it into being an idea that is not a theory?

Who ever said evolution isn't a theory?

Infohawk, though WileCoyote moreso:
"Cerb- something being observable fact doesn't "still make it a theory" as you state. It becomes strangely enough, a fact."

"And to all of you who say "evolution is a theory"... llike you Cerb...

For the last time, evolution is an observable scientific fact, going on around us as we speak. Read the posts above."

Well I didn't see the post after mine until after I replyed. It is large a pointless argument about defintions because there is the theory of evolution and the fact that evolution occured.

...and I'm still trying to figure out how one causes the other to not be valid.
Evolution being "just a theory" is a pretty compelling argument for the validity of evolution. Outside of theoretical sciences, a theory is pretty solid.

Here's a little discussion from a prof.
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~r...203380/3380theory.html

Now, as I stated earlier, the only common difference between theories and laws tends to be that laws specify what will happen in a circumstance, and typically involve the method.

Both require facts surrounding them, and both are considered facts until proven otherwise. Even so, to be proven otherwise does not invalidate them. In most cases, the theories replaced are missing pieces of information to make them more complete.

When or if we have enough information and bright minds to predict evolution's path, we may come upon a rule or rules that will be called laws. Evolution as a theory would take a back seat, because with the ability to explain and predict its path, it may be a necessary part of another science.

...however, I still see as much connection between 'being a fact' conflicting with 'being a theory' as I do with creationism having anything to do with evolution.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tommunist
Well evolution itself (in that it is occuring) is a fact - whether you want to believe the theory that it is what brought about the nice variety of life we have is the theory part (and I mean theory in the scientific sense here).

What individuals in schools are saying that evolution provides proof that God does not exist? That's the more rediculous thing I've ever heard b/c

1. religion isn't discussed in science class.
2. it only disproves God's existence if you are completely inflexible in your view of God in which case I think you are incredibly ignorant and silly.

but back to my intention - I had no clue what level of understanding you had of evolution nor do I care all that much. But as this thread continues I see how pointless it is to try to explain this all to some people despite the fact that I'm now doing what I recommended that infohawk not bother to do

You wouldn't think it so pointless if you didn't continue ASSuming that I believe things that I am actually arguing against.

you are assuming that I was referring to you specifically when I told infohawk not to bother you donkey - otherwise I wouldn't be conversing with you right now. I'm going to have to stop looking at this thread - it is starting to make my eyes bleed.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Cerb
A theory requires a hypothesis that has varied evidence to support it.
Observational facts over the years would qualify.
Without the ability to imperically(sp) predict the course of evolution, it is at the stage of being a theory. As already stated, much like gravity.

How does being proven with facts bring it into being an idea that is not a theory?

Who ever said evolution isn't a theory?

Infohawk, though WileCoyote moreso:
"Cerb- something being observable fact doesn't "still make it a theory" as you state. It becomes strangely enough, a fact."

"And to all of you who say "evolution is a theory"... llike you Cerb...

For the last time, evolution is an observable scientific fact, going on around us as we speak. Read the posts above."

Well I didn't see the post after mine until after I replyed. It is large a pointless argument about defintions because there is the theory of evolution and the fact that evolution occured.

...and I'm still trying to figure out how one causes the other to not be valid.
Evolution being "just a theory" is a pretty compelling argument for the validity of evolution. Outside of theoretical sciences, a theory is pretty solid.

Here's a little discussion from a prof.
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~r...203380/3380theory.html

Now, as I stated earlier, the only common difference between theories and laws tends to be that laws specify what will happen in a circumstance, and typically involve the method.

Both require facts surrounding them, and both are considered facts until proven otherwise. Even so, to be proven otherwise does not invalidate them. In most cases, the theories replaced are missing pieces of information to make them more complete.

When or if we have enough information and bright minds to predict evolution's path, we may come upon a rule or rules that will be called laws. Evolution as a theory would take a back seat, because with the ability to explain and predict its path, it may be a necessary part of another science.

...however, I still see as much connection between 'being a fact' conflicting with 'being a theory' as I do with creationism having anything to do with evolution.

The difference between laws and theorys is the differnce between the arragance of the author. See ohm's law for an example.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Now, as I stated earlier, the only common difference between theories and laws tends to be that laws specify what will happen in a circumstance, and typically involve the method.

This seems like an arbitrary definition of law and theory but let's accept it for the sake of argumetn.

When or if we have enough information and bright minds to predict evolution's path, we may come upon a rule or rules that will be called laws.

Guess what. We can predict evolution's path. In the language of your law, we can say what will happen in a specific circumstance. Take a butterfly species where some will have purple wings and some will have yellow wings. Have a larger proportion of purple wings. Introduce some predators. You will see that the purple-winged butterflys get eaten and decline and the yellow-winged butterflies become predominant. You will have just predicted evolution. Alternatively, you could sit down and take some bacteria and watch evolution unfold and predict the consequences. Therefore, evolution is a law and you have no reason not to accept it as such.

...however, I still see as much connection between 'being a fact' conflicting with 'being a theory' as I do with creationism having anything to do with evolution.

See the post just above yours. Something can be fact and theory. It's just a matter of semantics.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
Cerb... the stickers in the books said it themselves...

From the article that started this thred:

The stickers were put in the books by school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

(my emphasis)

To which my reply was:

Evolution is a theory. It is only a theory.
Why? Because there is enough evidence for it over other possibilities, but not enough overwhelming evidence for it to be a law.
Now, my personal opinion is that if the parents didn't like it, they didn't have to send their kids to public schools. Public schools should teach the best scientific theories we have. Maybe they aren't 100% right, but the smart folks try their best, and all work both as evidence of evolution, and as inquiry into other theories (actually, most tend to be evolution variants), is undermined by crap like this. I agree about going into it with an open mind and all, but a sticker won't help with that.

*grumble* The Cobb Co. computer show turns to crap, and in only a couple years we get this.

Emphasis also added. The thread topic has a lot more to do with the parents than anything else.

 

[Infohawk]

A nice explanation fo the problem people are having from wikipedia:

Often the statement "Well, it's just a theory," is used to dismiss controversial theories such as evolution, but this is largely due to confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e. it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

This is true of such established theories as evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, etc.

Accept it, evolution is as much truth as gravity is.

 

[wylecoyote]

My paranoia... Okey doke. I was simply trying to clarify the difference between evolution the fact and evolution as the origin of species as theory.

And now to continue the argument that stemmed from my disagreeing with your calling humans "near perfect"....

You reference the cannibalistic fishes, Cichlids. Indeed, they do eat their young, without filial preference. Cannibalism, however, was not the topic of discussion. Murder and warfare was. If you remember my post, I expressed that warfare, the murder of another member of the same species for no other reason that annihilation, was a human trait. These fish are eating their young for nourishment. As a source of food. Animals killing members of the same species in regard to food, mating, or shelter is something I acknowledged in my earlier post.

This applies to your Lion King statement. Lions killing another male's cubs in order to produce his own is related to mating, is it not? Male lions killing the alpha male (which is rare I might add, they usually are simply banished from the tribe after defeat) is also related to mating. I don't see male lions killing female lions. Google me that.

In an article titled "Our Closest Relatives" (ironic, I'll explain later why) the author recounts how Goodall, "Through the years her work continued to yield surprising insights, such as the unsettling discovery that chimpanzees engage in primitive and brutal warfare. In early 1974, a "four-year war" began at Gombe, the first record of long-term "warfare" in nonhuman primates. Members of the Kasakela group systematically annihilated members of the "Kahama" splinter group."

First of all, I'm not self-righteous enough to admit you're correct on the Ape warfare. I didn't know that... Learn something everyday. A few things occured to me though, which brings us back to the statement you made that started this retarded tangent. "Humans are near perfect".

If we are an improvment on them, as they are our "closest relatives", it seems that we too have improved substantially the art of killing each other. Systematic annihilation of the Kahama splinter group pales in contrast to the Holocaust. It must be genetic. But then again, humans, as you stated, are "near perfect."

Just like you, Vic. Just like you.

 

[wylecoyote]

Another thing I forgot to add Vic...

You state, rather unwisely, the follwoing comment...

"As for war and its necessity in human evolution, once again I suggest you study. Lacking predators, our evolutionary makeup requires that we cull ourselves somehow."

Hey, if we were "near perfect" we'd find better ways to cull our population. Warfare, it seems, is one of the most traumatic, painful, and irrational ways to cull ourselves.

You also state...

"In addition, war tends to splash gene pool "waters" from one pool to another. Historians have noted that every war tends to end with a "baby boom" 9 months afterwards."

Baby booms are related to the biological reaction to mate in times of stress and elation... And the fact that all the men coming back from abroad gives females mating partners.

 

[wylecoyote]

Nice post infohawk... definately addresses the confusion of language that is hindering the thread.

 

[wylecoyote]

So.... what was this thread originally arguing again? I've lost track (in part my fault).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
you are assuming that I was referring to you specifically when I told infohawk not to bother you donkey - otherwise I wouldn't be conversing with you right now. I'm going to have to stop looking at this thread - it is starting to make my eyes bleed.

You quoted my post and were attempting to make a rebuttal to my statements. If was a pretty safe assumption on my part that you were actually referring to me. Go bleed your eyes out :roll:

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
Another thing I forgot to add Vic...

You state, rather unwisely, the follwoing comment...

"As for war and its necessity in human evolution, once again I suggest you study. Lacking predators, our evolutionary makeup requires that we cull ourselves somehow."

Hey, if we were "near perfect" we'd find better ways to cull our population. Warfare, it seems, is one of the most traumatic, painful, and irrational ways to cull ourselves.

You also state...

"In addition, war tends to splash gene pool "waters" from one pool to another. Historians have noted that every war tends to end with a "baby boom" 9 months afterwards."

Baby booms are related to the biological reaction to mate in times of stress and elation... And the fact that all the men coming back from abroad gives females mating partners.

Heh. Seems near perfect to me. Beautiful even, albeit tragic. Anyway, how would you suggest the culls take place? Voluntarily? Ridiculous, only those who should not be culled would volunteer.

Anyway, I just thought I'd show you all what evolution really is... sorry if it's not what you think it is. I agree (and have believed for many years) that here and now evolution is most certainly factual and real, so you can stop calling me a heretic, although I understand that happens when people have pre-conceived dogmas.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Accept it, evolution is as much truth as gravity is.

Still confusing the issue, eh? Enjoy.

 

[wylecoyote]

Well, I 'd be willing to wager that not having so many kids per capita and controlling our population before it got out of hand would be wise. However, since time immemorial humans have fought each other. Even thousands of years ago when there was absolutely no need to cull ourselves.

Either way, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on the relative perfection of humanity. Honestly though, I appreciate the debate and argument you've presented.

I guess I'll have to come to grips with the fact that I'm genetically superior.... I mean infierior. Right. Inferior....

P.S. I think you and I actually agree on what evolution is... right?

 

[Velk]

I have to wonder what the reaction would be to putting stickers on the bible saying :
"This book contains material on creationism. Creationism is an assertion, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

All of the above is true, but it still turns out fairly insulting doesn't it ?

 

[Sunner]

Wow...maybe I had just one beer too many yesterday...

Anyway, Vic, I must say I'm not entirely certain what we're arguing here.
Seems to be the semantics of the evolution note on the books more than anything.

You mentioned that evolution is taught as a theory about the origin of life, that's a problem of course, it shouldn't be because it isn't, but that doesn't mean one should put stickers on books with incorrect information along the "Wrong + wrong = right" principle.

Besides, it's fairly obvious by the wording that whoever wanted the notes there wanted to downplay the theory of evolution to being somehow equal to the "theory" of creation, which is of course silly from an educational point of view.

Anyway, I'm still curious about two things.
For one, where did you get this anti-freedom thing from?

And secondly, how would "I am very glad you don't live in my free country" not be interpreted as you not wanting me to live in your country?
If you're glad something happened, that kinda implies you wanted it to happen.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tommunist
you are assuming that I was referring to you specifically when I told infohawk not to bother you donkey - otherwise I wouldn't be conversing with you right now. I'm going to have to stop looking at this thread - it is starting to make my eyes bleed.

You quoted my post and were attempting to make a rebuttal to my statements. If was a pretty safe assumption on my part that you were actually referring to me. Go bleed your eyes out :roll:
.

Wrong - I qouted infohawks post and from that point forward you assumed that I was saying you specifically didn't understand evolution when I was only referring to people in general. I honestly don't give a rats ass if you do or not but calling me an "ass" was completely uncalled for as I had made no direct attack on your person. This is the kind of sh!t that makes this forum almost unbearable.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I have to wonder what the reaction would be to putting stickers on the bible saying :
"This book contains material on creationism. Creationism is an assertion, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

This analogy would hold true if you had mandatory Bible study classes in public schools, but that is not the case. What you do have is a situation where high school teachers and textbooks present evolution as factual and in some cases conflicting to the Genesis tale.

If you are not of the religious mindset, it is nearly impossible to understand how anyone could find evolution offensive...the dividing line between freedom of religion vs. state sponsored religious persecution is difficult to define...particularly in the evolution example, what some people might view as progressive and enlightened, others view as an attack on their religious beliefs...doesn't help that the religious right is stirred up like a hornets nest right now, and is aggressively attacking on multiple fronts.

 

[dmcowen674]

1-18-2005 Ga. Schools to Appeal Evolution Ruling

MARIETTA, Ga. - Members of a suburban district's school board plan to challenge a federal judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact."

In a 5-2 vote, the Cobb County school board decided to appeal last week's ruling.

"We have to make our best judgment based on the facts," said Curt Johnston, a member who was chairman when the board adopted the disclaimers in 2002.

The decision to appeal surprised Jeffrey Selman, who led parents in a lawsuit to remove the stickers.

"They're ludicrous," Selman said of the school board. "They're ignoring the ruling."

The disclaimers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."