AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → ignorance, and the man who wants to put it into schools.

62 18489
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,487 posts
Blacksmith

In order for you to understand this one, you need to watch this episode of the colbert report. you only need to watch the final segment with the interview, but by all means watch the whole thing.

this guy is trying something that not even william jennings bryan was able to do in his battle in the supreme court. he is trying to put creationism back into biology classes, and history classes. he is trying to take a dump on the so called "left-wing liberalists" (scientific knowledge) and believes that his cause is just.

in my opinion, this is something that I as an educated atheist texan (a very small minority, mind you) cannot stand for. he is trying to force religious belief when we have in effect some form of church and state separation that prevents such an act of fundamental idiocy.

now, my better question is, should we allow people like this any say in how our educational system is run? what is your take on this guy's quest?

-Blade

  • 62 Replies
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

That is not the point. The point of the thread is whether evolution should be taught with biology, and it should not. Whether creation exists is way to huge a debate to be getting into here.


Why not? It isn't a huge debate, no more than calling "Which god is the real god: Muslim or Christian?" is a huge debate. People are arguing it, but there is no scientific maters to any of their arguments.

That's not the right kind of evolution that's adaptation, survival of the fittest, bacterial evolution is different. I'm talking about homo-sapiens coming from apes. From what I've seen, homo-sapiens are a parasite by any definition.


No it isn't. Bacterial evolution and human evolution is exactly the same thing. How is it different?

Creation should not be taught with biology. Can we all agree on that? Or is someone going to go and say other wise?


Creation should not be thought in biology.
j_c_mooncity
offline
j_c_mooncity
1,060 posts
Nomad

Question answered. And you are right, adaptation is evolution, I was just thinking on a larger scale than E. Coli resisting penicillin.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Question answered. And you are right, adaptation is evolution, I was just thinking on a larger scale than E. Coli resisting penicillin.


All right. Now that we have proven evolution, lets prove evolution on large scales!

First, get married and have a ton of children. Swear them all in a blood oath to carry out this experiment. This is a necessary step, since this experiment is going to take a lot of time.

Not this time take a hundred different samples from the hospital and keep them in separate conditions. Change up the food, atmosphere, temperature, sunlight, and other such factors. Then take in it's behavior every year or so, for a few hundred years should do it. If something big as being able to resist antibiotics, then why can't it be the same with temperature? And camouflage? And intelligence? And speed? Size? Eventually you will have a hundred different species of bacteria, and your great great great great great great great great great great great great grandsons and daughters will be freed from their blood oath.
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

Uh, 314, hate to break it to ya - the Christian God is the same as the Muslim one (both of them being Abrahamic religions and all).

Is this timeline of fossil evidence showing the evolution of hominid species good enough for you?

j_c_mooncity
offline
j_c_mooncity
1,060 posts
Nomad

I never said that I'm against evolution, I was thinking about the whole man from ape thing. That just seems a little far fetched. After the Common Ancestor started to differentiate, I think we split a lot sooner than the scientists say we did, but that's just me. That's what I meant by large scale, whole animals and things, not bacteria. Anyone can do that, there are entire things based around bio-warfare.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Uh, 314, hate to break it to ya - the Christian God is the same as the Muslim one (both of them being Abrahamic religions and all).


Shhh. Don't tell them or the Jews. They are still fighting over who has the right god.
j_c_mooncity
offline
j_c_mooncity
1,060 posts
Nomad

Now the biggest question is, does this "God" exist. I don't know. Please, don't debate that, that is worthy of a whole other thread

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I never said that I'm against evolution, I was thinking about the whole man from ape thing. That just seems a little far fetched


Eh? Why? Your still an ape at this moment...

Look at the skulls, the spines, the arms, really any point in the body and you can see good comparisons to humans, they look really similar don't they?

After the Common Ancestor started to differentiate, I think we split a lot sooner than the scientists say we did, but that's just me


May I see the evidence on this?

If it really is just what "You think", you can hardly use that as evidence for keeping science out of science class.

That's what I meant by large scale, whole animals and things, not bacteria. Anyone can do that, there are entire things based around bio-warfare.


All right. Now get back your great to the tenth grandchildren and make them swear a blood oath again. Now get a ton of dogs. Now throw some in the desert, some in the forests, some in mountains, and whatever you can think of. You should know that dog species are really different? A chiwawa is different than a great dane. But they are both just domesticated wolves combined with artificial selection and there really isn't that much difference between them. Assuming you can get out some problems, they can even bread together. The vast diversity of dogs shows evolution in larger creatures, doesn't it? Give us more time, and I am sure we could make an entirely different species.
j_c_mooncity
offline
j_c_mooncity
1,060 posts
Nomad

Keeping science out of science class? And I wasn't using that as evidence, we agree on the matter, why are we debating why think what we think? Any way, I do think the we do come from a common ancestor, but from we have found so far make me think we're missing a million or so years, simply because we haven't found much, and what we have found still seems to different to firmly say, "We have found the approximate time the we separated from apes."

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Keeping science out of science class?


Keeping evolution out of science classes would be keeping science out of science classes.

And I wasn't using that as evidence, we agree on the matter, why are we debating why think what we think?


What matter?

Any way, I do think the we do come from a common ancestor, but from we have found so far make me think we're missing a million or so years, simply because we haven't found much, and what we have found still seems to different to firmly say, "We have found the approximate time the we separated from apes."


What million or so years are we missing that is so important?

Here is a chart from the other guy's link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/timeline.jpg

It is a little fuzzy in the paste, but you can pretty clearly tell everything...
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Sorry about any errors in my statement, it's been a while since biology, some details are sketchy.


You need to pay better attention.

I posted this.
"Theory; A scientific explanation of related observations or events based on hypotheses and verified multiple times by different independent researchers."

And this.
"The theory of evolution is a change in allele frequency in a species over generations, or more simply put decent with modification."

On the same page you posted this.
"creationism is a theory,"

An this.
"Evolution essentially states that all creature came from the binding of amino-acids to form living things."

You got this stuff wrong even with the correct information right there in front of you.

Creationism is NOT a theory, i is not based on a hypothesis and has not been verified at all. For that matter it doesn't explain all of the observations that we make as well. So it fails at every criteria to be a theory.

No it isn't. Bacterial evolution and human evolution is exactly the same thing. How is it different?


bacteria are capable of evolving just as humans are. However bacteria and other simple single celled life forms are also capable of doing something called horizontal gene transfer. This process does differ from what humans and other multicellular life forms are capable of.

Question answered. And you are right, adaptation is evolution, I was just thinking on a larger scale than E. Coli resisting penicillin.


Do you mean macroevolution? Because we do have direct observed evidence of this as well.
macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of species. So spciation events is macroevolution, something we have observed. A prime example of his is in ring species.
Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation

I never said that I'm against evolution, I was thinking about the whole man from ape thing. That just seems a little far fetched.


This is like saying Golden Retriever from dog is far fetched. Humans are apes.

We don't even need the fossil record to demonstrate our linage either. We can see it in our very genome and the genome of other apes. We can even take this further and trace the entire tree of life using this method.
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
Facts Of Evolution: Retroviruses And Pseudogenes
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,487 posts
Blacksmith

@mooncity:

bias against all religions is much better than being forcibly indoctrinated into a religion that you don't believe in. this is one of the reasons that we have separation of church and state (somewhat anyway).

also, you lost the debate the moment you did these 2 things in succession:

1.called creationism a theory.
2.confused evolution with abiogenesis.

but this is beside the point. the question I asked was if we should give anybody the right to force religion into science and make a brutal mockery of actual scientific knowledge by spouting out creationist ideas instead of the proven theory of evolution. you cannot teach both in science, we all agree on that, but we should never replace fact with fallacy. it would turn science into a joke.

-Blade

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

the question I asked was if we should give anybody the right to force religion into science and make a brutal mockery of actual scientific knowledge by spouting out creationist ideas instead of the proven theory of evolution.

If so, then we also need the flat-earth concept in geography and the firmament concept in astronomy.
Blkasp
offline
Blkasp
1,304 posts
Nomad

bias against all religions is much better than being forcibly indoctrinated into a religion that you don't believe in. this is one of the reasons that we have separation of church and state (somewhat anyway).


So somehow by talking about your religion you are forcing them to believe it?

By this means, by Neo-Nazi's telling ordianary innocent civilians their twisted ways, they are forced to believe it? No. They have a choice to reject it, just like religion! Just because you get taught about Christianity doesn't mean you are forced to believe it? You have every right to reject the belief!

the only thing that creation teachings will help me in the long run is making myself look ignorant, and indoctrinated.


Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or information. Some by learning about religion, you have become Ignorant? Sir, what are you on about? You have become informed about the religion thus you are no longer ignorant towards the subject!
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

By this means, by Neo-Nazi's telling ordianary innocent civilians their twisted ways, they are forced to believe it? No. They have a choice to reject it, just like religion! Just because you get taught about Christianity doesn't mean you are forced to believe it? You have every right to reject the belief!


The issue is not whether adding religion into education is the same as indoctrination, it's whether addition religion into a science class such as Biology is sound. It really isn't, but I'm sure you already know that given the amount of comments related to that subject. Adding religion into education can be indoctrination if said religion is being given at a much higher priority than another, having biased teachers with religious slants, rejecting the scientific theories altogether, or even punishing the student's grades on assignments if the short answer/essay questions weren't tuned enough to the religion.

Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or information. Some by learning about religion, you have become Ignorant? Sir, what are you on about? You have become informed about the religion thus you are no longer ignorant towards the subject!


This can be done if you allow what this man hopes to accomplish, by having religion being taught alongside Biology. You become more informed about religion, but how does this go for the relevant course content? You become less informed about Biological theories, what the course is required of the curriculum, and you can become less inclined to open your critical thinking skills towards the subject. This spells triple-trouble if you have indoctrination and biased teachers afoot.

Final nail in the coffin, they just don't mix. Leave theology for a different course altogether.
Showing 31-45 of 62