makes sense. How do you end up with a three chamber heart? Reptiles have a three chamber heart and it is assumed that small mammals evolved from small reptiles.
Fish have a two chambered heart. While I'm not a PHD Biologist, I don't think that mammals evolved directly from fish at the exact moment their two chamber heart split.
Good theory though.
Made me curious, and it turns out that it's not nearly that simple. There are some with four-chambered hearts, and some with three-chambered that behave similarly to four-chambered hearts.
The theory of evolution stands because no matter what people throw at it, they haven't disproved it. There is no better alternate theory that explains more than the current theory does or has better predictive power. There is no other theory that is as useful in practice as the theory of evolution. Modern life sciences and many of the amazing things they are able to do today are based upon it. When the "non-believers" can come up with a new theory that explains all the mountains of observed evidence better, and has better predictive power, then they will have conquered evolutionary theory. That won't happen though, I think we both know that. At best there would probably be some more rather minor modifications to the theory. This will happen anyway as we discover more and more about the mechanisms of evolution and find new pieces of evidence.
As for disproving religions, there's no need for that. They stand upon nothing in the first place. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Although creationists do believe that a supernatural being created the universe, some have postulated theories explaining how that being could have used natural laws to finish the creation of the universe. I refer you to an excellent book Starlight & Time from the esteemed astronomer Dr. Ray Humphreys.
The supernatural is outside of the domain of science, and is therefore not scientific. That it why it should never be taught as science. The universe and the laws of nature exist. Adding that they exist because "God" created them is just unsupportable, non-scientific speculation.
You are making a false distinction. Besides, this whole thread came about because I was replying to someone who said it was clearly a First Amendment issue. My reply was that no, it isn't necessarily, because it could be slander or libel or otherwise speech that is not protected.
He was referring to speech covered by this law, the law that we are discussing here, the one that was described and linked in the summary. The one that would allow censoring of speech described by the law as "negative" or "embarrassing to the city". Let me be clear here, it's NOT covering any of things that are covered by those other laws that you were referring to, such as libel. THAT is why your post was completely irrelevant to the discussion. All your examples of illegal speech are irrelevant to the discussion of THIS law. End of story.
Talk about twisted logic! First you call my point obvious, then you call it irrelevant. Well, you can't have it both ways.
It *IS* relevant because the person I responded to said that it was "clearly" a First Amendment matter. My response was, in essence, that it is not, necessarily, because the First Amendment does not cover all speech. And you call that irrelevant?
Pardon me, but despite the fact that you don't seem to like it, or maybe think it was nitpicking or whatever, I made a valid and correct point. Live with it.
If you actually read what the proposed law is about, you'll see that it's not about covering things that are already covered by libel, slander, and other laws that we already have. If it was, they wouldn't need a new law!! It's about being able to censor anything negative or embarrassing to the city. That has absolutely nothing to do with what you were talking about, and yes, It's clearly a First Amendment matter!
YOU are obviously talking about it. If it's so irrelevant, why are you even continuing to discuss this?
And yes, it does have something to do with this law. It is really too bad that you do not seem to have understood my point, but nobody else seems to be having that problem.
Only talking about it because you started this tangent and then kept claiming that your arguments were relevant. Don't want anyone else mistaking you for someone who knows what they're talking about. And you're wrong about it having anything to do with this law. We have plenty of perfectly good laws to deal with all those scenarios you talked about. This new law is not about those things. You were wrong. Deal with it.
Not all Creationists believe Creationism is science. Only a vocal minority.
Don't lump them all together by the actions of these few, otherwise you become no better than the religious bigots.
I don't lump them all together. I believe they all believe in something that there's no evidence for, but those that try to get it inserted into school curriculum are certainly more dangerous than those that don't.
The point I made was that the First Amendment does not necessarily apply here, because it depends entirely on the speech involved. That was my point (1). And it was correct... because if somebody posted on their Facebook page that their boss was a child molester when he really wasn't, that isn't protected speech, whether they are a government employee or not. That is a valid case in which the speech does not involve first amendment issues. And simply writing that they don't like their job or boss is no less hypothetical. So don't be a hypocrite. I was merely pointing out that the issue was not as black and white as the parent suggested.
Thank you Captain Obvious. But since nobody was talking about that, and the law that we're actually discussing here doesn't refer to that, your post was a pointless diversion of the conversation. The 1st Amendment certainly does apply to the types of speech that this law seeks to limit. Nobody claimed it overrides libel, slander, public safety, etc. Only you brought that up for some bizarre reason. It has nothing at all to do with this law.
What I stated is perfectly relevant in the context of my statement: "Nobody... is granted freedom of speech without consequences." The fire in a theater situation is just one example.
Actually you disputed the earlier post that said that freedom of speech applied in this situation, claiming that freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no consequences. Remember? You said:
(1) A person in the United States enjoys the right of freedom of speech... but not a right to "freedom of speech without any consequences".
You started us down the ridiculous path of hypothetical situations that simply don't apply here. We already have laws covering things like yelling fire in a theater or slander or libel. This law is none of those things. It specifically covers speech that is merely embarrassing to the city.
"Ah, I get it now! I can say what I like, but it is still free if I get imprisoned for it. Because the "free" in "free speech" is the same as in "free will"."
Don't be an ass. That's not what I wrote.
NOBODY in the United States is granted freedom of speech without consequences. As in the famous example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, you can indeed be arrested for speech, First Amendment or not.
This is not even remotely the same as shouting fire in a theater. This is the government retaliating against people for speech that it doesn't like, not because of anything to do with public safety.
Kansas is Midwestern. I can't think of any other states off-hand that have pushed creationism into the science classroom. Of course, I don't really pay much attention to it since it hasn't happened in my state yet (NC, a southern state).
You should pay attention. If the Texas board of education gets it's way, evolution will be taught as being a very flawed theory, and intelligent design will be presented as a scientific alternative. Since Texas is a major influence on the books that most of the rest of the country uses, that should scare you.
How did he lump *all* southerners in as nutjobs? Do you have reading comprehension issues or what?
"It's nice to know their are nutjobs in other places besides just the southern US", then why the 'just'. Technically it may not mean all people from the southeast usa but it is saying that they would all fit here. Well, I disagree.
No, it doesn't imply that they would all fit here either. At best it implies that the southern US is the place that the poster is familiar with, and he feels a sort of comfort from knowing that it's not the only place with nutjobs like that.
Perhaps you missed my point about how if God were outside of time,the notion of God having a beginning or end is meaningless -- and it therefore becomes safe to say that God always was. You can't say the same about the universe because time is part of it. Simply put, God only needs a requires a creator if God is also bound by time just as the universe is. If one is to assume that God created the universe at all, then God clearly existed before the universe, and existing before the universe would mean that there is no reason to assume that the restrictions imposed by the universe, in particular, the effects of time, would have to apply. To assume otherwise would be to assume that time itself also exists outside of the universe, but that contradicts current accepted scientific theory which is that time began with the Big Bang.
Oh, and I capitalize God because that would be the beings name, least insomuch as we are capable of identifying any name for it.
Time as we know it began with the big bang. We know nothing of what conditions existed before. Positing a creator god requires more assumptions than simply positing that the conditions for the creation of the universe existed, and thus it exists. Why go to such lengths to insert some sort of anthropomorphic god into the picture?
but likely to be overturned by India's "supreme court" later on.
I suppose you're hoping that India's Supreme Court will reverse its earlier ruling which recognizes astrology as a science worthy of being taught at universities, and with courses funded by taxpayers. http://www.scribd.com/doc/19043519/Astrology-Case-in-Supreme-Court-of-India. Here's a relevant excerpt from that judgement:
"Since Astrology is partly based upon study of movement of sun, earth, planets and other celestial bodies, it is a study of science at least to some extent."
I wonder what "study" they think has been done to support the claims of astrologers. That they point to celestial bodies and make claims about them is hardly any sort of study.
Do you have empirical evidence that people who disagree with you are of unsound mind? How did you acquire that information, is it in peer reviewed journals? Or is it just your own biased opinion masquerading as rationality.
Sure creationism should be challenged. However, if we attack it with stupidity, we'll just confirm the opinion that scientists are untrustworthy liars.
The fact that they consider something that has absolutely no scientific basis to be science shows quite plainly that there is something very wrong with their thinking. Seems like sufficient basis for his comment.
No, but that's certainly where you'll find them in the highest concentrations.
No, they're rather spread out. Where southerners concentrate you get interesting places like Athens, Savannah, or Austin.
Actually every major southern city is an example of where southerners concentrate. The particular nutjobs in question here are certainly more prominent in the south. Austin is something of an anomaly in Texas, which is probably why I like it so much.
At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe.
What happened to the/. that was fairly neutral, objective and unbiased? Perhaps it only existed in my mind. Ad hominem such as this is unnecessary, it only cheapens/. as a whole. Creationism is not being pushed anywhere as a science, to be taught, sure, but not as science. Somehow it has become the boogeyman to those that don't actually know what science is. In the marketplace of ideas their will always be struggle, and the victor will not be the one making childish remarks towards the other.
Sorry buddy, but I happen to live in Texas, where the board of education is most definitely trying to have creationism taught as science. They don't believe in evolution, and want to teach I.D. as a scientific alternative to evolution. Read for yourself. Pay particular attention to Mercer, McElroy, Lowe, Leo, Dunbar, and Bradley, who are some of the worst offenders. They are completely unqualified to render any sort of judgement on these issues, as their own statements show that they have no understanding of the theory of evolution themselves.
On top of that, there are enough morons down here that they keep getting voted back in. Morons get elected, make the curriculum worse, creating more morons who'll get elected. It's a vicious cycle.
Justified or not, it shows arrogance and a lack of class. Perhaps I'm insane but I do expect better.
What exactly is wrong with noting that there are people elsewhere creating the same kinds of difficulties that we have to deal with here? It's a kind of commiseration. I don't see the problem here.
Eh, only racist rebels down there though, right? Not like us dandy Yankees.
No, but you and others responding like this sure are helping to lend credence to the stereotypes about our education levels down here. He is correct that those who want to teach creationism as science tend to be southerners though. Nowhere in there does he say anything about *all* southerners thinking that way. See the difference?
It's funny how when us southerner "nutjobs" say something about what we believe, so many of you come back with "They are so intolerant", yet it is ok for YOU to lump all southerners in together as nutjobs.
Hypocricy knows no bounds...
How did he lump *all* southerners in as nutjobs? Do you have reading comprehension issues or what? I'm a southerner too, but I don't find anything offensive about that statement. Also, believing with actual evidence is different than just believing.
Slashdot Mirror
makes sense. How do you end up with a three chamber heart? Reptiles have a three chamber heart and it is assumed that small mammals evolved from small reptiles.
Fish have a two chambered heart. While I'm not a PHD Biologist, I don't think that mammals evolved directly from fish at the exact moment their two chamber heart split.
Good theory though.
Made me curious, and it turns out that it's not nearly that simple. There are some with four-chambered hearts, and some with three-chambered that behave similarly to four-chambered hearts.
The theory of evolution stands because no matter what people throw at it, they haven't disproved it. There is no better alternate theory that explains more than the current theory does or has better predictive power. There is no other theory that is as useful in practice as the theory of evolution. Modern life sciences and many of the amazing things they are able to do today are based upon it. When the "non-believers" can come up with a new theory that explains all the mountains of observed evidence better, and has better predictive power, then they will have conquered evolutionary theory. That won't happen though, I think we both know that. At best there would probably be some more rather minor modifications to the theory. This will happen anyway as we discover more and more about the mechanisms of evolution and find new pieces of evidence.
As for disproving religions, there's no need for that. They stand upon nothing in the first place. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Although creationists do believe that a supernatural being created the universe, some have postulated theories explaining how that being could have used natural laws to finish the creation of the universe. I refer you to an excellent book Starlight & Time from the esteemed astronomer Dr. Ray Humphreys.
The supernatural is outside of the domain of science, and is therefore not scientific. That it why it should never be taught as science. The universe and the laws of nature exist. Adding that they exist because "God" created them is just unsupportable, non-scientific speculation.
You are making a false distinction. Besides, this whole thread came about because I was replying to someone who said it was clearly a First Amendment issue. My reply was that no, it isn't necessarily, because it could be slander or libel or otherwise speech that is not protected.
He was referring to speech covered by this law, the law that we are discussing here, the one that was described and linked in the summary. The one that would allow censoring of speech described by the law as "negative" or "embarrassing to the city". Let me be clear here, it's NOT covering any of things that are covered by those other laws that you were referring to, such as libel. THAT is why your post was completely irrelevant to the discussion. All your examples of illegal speech are irrelevant to the discussion of THIS law. End of story.
... how about you suck it up, acknowledge you got caught, and pay the fine?
99.9999% of these people are guilty of an illegal act. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous and deliberately trying to avoid that point.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Hmm... made-up statistics, presumption of guilt. The new American justice.
Talk about twisted logic! First you call my point obvious, then you call it irrelevant. Well, you can't have it both ways. It *IS* relevant because the person I responded to said that it was "clearly" a First Amendment matter. My response was, in essence, that it is not, necessarily, because the First Amendment does not cover all speech. And you call that irrelevant? Pardon me, but despite the fact that you don't seem to like it, or maybe think it was nitpicking or whatever, I made a valid and correct point. Live with it.
If you actually read what the proposed law is about, you'll see that it's not about covering things that are already covered by libel, slander, and other laws that we already have. If it was, they wouldn't need a new law!! It's about being able to censor anything negative or embarrassing to the city. That has absolutely nothing to do with what you were talking about, and yes, It's clearly a First Amendment matter!
YOU are obviously talking about it. If it's so irrelevant, why are you even continuing to discuss this? And yes, it does have something to do with this law. It is really too bad that you do not seem to have understood my point, but nobody else seems to be having that problem.
Only talking about it because you started this tangent and then kept claiming that your arguments were relevant. Don't want anyone else mistaking you for someone who knows what they're talking about. And you're wrong about it having anything to do with this law. We have plenty of perfectly good laws to deal with all those scenarios you talked about. This new law is not about those things. You were wrong. Deal with it.
Not all Creationists believe Creationism is science. Only a vocal minority.
Don't lump them all together by the actions of these few, otherwise you become no better than the religious bigots.
I don't lump them all together. I believe they all believe in something that there's no evidence for, but those that try to get it inserted into school curriculum are certainly more dangerous than those that don't.
The point I made was that the First Amendment does not necessarily apply here, because it depends entirely on the speech involved. That was my point (1). And it was correct... because if somebody posted on their Facebook page that their boss was a child molester when he really wasn't, that isn't protected speech, whether they are a government employee or not. That is a valid case in which the speech does not involve first amendment issues. And simply writing that they don't like their job or boss is no less hypothetical. So don't be a hypocrite. I was merely pointing out that the issue was not as black and white as the parent suggested.
Thank you Captain Obvious. But since nobody was talking about that, and the law that we're actually discussing here doesn't refer to that, your post was a pointless diversion of the conversation. The 1st Amendment certainly does apply to the types of speech that this law seeks to limit. Nobody claimed it overrides libel, slander, public safety, etc. Only you brought that up for some bizarre reason. It has nothing at all to do with this law.
What I stated is perfectly relevant in the context of my statement: "Nobody... is granted freedom of speech without consequences." The fire in a theater situation is just one example.
Actually you disputed the earlier post that said that freedom of speech applied in this situation, claiming that freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no consequences. Remember? You said:
You started us down the ridiculous path of hypothetical situations that simply don't apply here. We already have laws covering things like yelling fire in a theater or slander or libel. This law is none of those things. It specifically covers speech that is merely embarrassing to the city.
"Ah, I get it now! I can say what I like, but it is still free if I get imprisoned for it. Because the "free" in "free speech" is the same as in "free will"."
Don't be an ass. That's not what I wrote. NOBODY in the United States is granted freedom of speech without consequences. As in the famous example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, you can indeed be arrested for speech, First Amendment or not.
This is not even remotely the same as shouting fire in a theater. This is the government retaliating against people for speech that it doesn't like, not because of anything to do with public safety.
Kansas is Midwestern. I can't think of any other states off-hand that have pushed creationism into the science classroom. Of course, I don't really pay much attention to it since it hasn't happened in my state yet (NC, a southern state).
You should pay attention. If the Texas board of education gets it's way, evolution will be taught as being a very flawed theory, and intelligent design will be presented as a scientific alternative. Since Texas is a major influence on the books that most of the rest of the country uses, that should scare you.
How did he lump *all* southerners in as nutjobs? Do you have reading comprehension issues or what?
"It's nice to know their are nutjobs in other places besides just the southern US", then why the 'just'. Technically it may not mean all people from the southeast usa but it is saying that they would all fit here. Well, I disagree.
No, it doesn't imply that they would all fit here either. At best it implies that the southern US is the place that the poster is familiar with, and he feels a sort of comfort from knowing that it's not the only place with nutjobs like that.
Perhaps you missed my point about how if God were outside of time,the notion of God having a beginning or end is meaningless -- and it therefore becomes safe to say that God always was. You can't say the same about the universe because time is part of it. Simply put, God only needs a requires a creator if God is also bound by time just as the universe is. If one is to assume that God created the universe at all, then God clearly existed before the universe, and existing before the universe would mean that there is no reason to assume that the restrictions imposed by the universe, in particular, the effects of time, would have to apply. To assume otherwise would be to assume that time itself also exists outside of the universe, but that contradicts current accepted scientific theory which is that time began with the Big Bang.
Oh, and I capitalize God because that would be the beings name, least insomuch as we are capable of identifying any name for it.
Time as we know it began with the big bang. We know nothing of what conditions existed before. Positing a creator god requires more assumptions than simply positing that the conditions for the creation of the universe existed, and thus it exists. Why go to such lengths to insert some sort of anthropomorphic god into the picture?
but likely to be overturned by India's "supreme court" later on.
I suppose you're hoping that India's Supreme Court will reverse its earlier ruling which recognizes astrology as a science worthy of being taught at universities, and with courses funded by taxpayers. http://www.scribd.com/doc/19043519/Astrology-Case-in-Supreme-Court-of-India. Here's a relevant excerpt from that judgement: "Since Astrology is partly based upon study of movement of sun, earth, planets and other celestial bodies, it is a study of science at least to some extent."
I wonder what "study" they think has been done to support the claims of astrologers. That they point to celestial bodies and make claims about them is hardly any sort of study.
Do you have empirical evidence that people who disagree with you are of unsound mind? How did you acquire that information, is it in peer reviewed journals? Or is it just your own biased opinion masquerading as rationality.
Sure creationism should be challenged. However, if we attack it with stupidity, we'll just confirm the opinion that scientists are untrustworthy liars.
The fact that they consider something that has absolutely no scientific basis to be science shows quite plainly that there is something very wrong with their thinking. Seems like sufficient basis for his comment.
Yes, for instance they can also be found in the northern US.
True, but unfortunately we have a lot more of them down south. I'd love to send them all to smaller states up north where they can do less damage.
No, they're rather spread out. Where southerners concentrate you get interesting places like Athens, Savannah, or Austin.
Actually every major southern city is an example of where southerners concentrate. The particular nutjobs in question here are certainly more prominent in the south. Austin is something of an anomaly in Texas, which is probably why I like it so much.
Not from my observations travelling about the nation.
Idiots are everywhere, they are just more loud, obnoxious and rude up north.
We're talking about a specific group of idiots here though, and that group is more concentrated in the south.
At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe.
What happened to the /. that was fairly neutral, objective and unbiased? Perhaps it only existed in my mind. Ad hominem such as this is unnecessary, it only cheapens /. as a whole. Creationism is not being pushed anywhere as a science, to be taught, sure, but not as science. Somehow it has become the boogeyman to those that don't actually know what science is. In the marketplace of ideas their will always be struggle, and the victor will not be the one making childish remarks towards the other.
Sorry buddy, but I happen to live in Texas, where the board of education is most definitely trying to have creationism taught as science. They don't believe in evolution, and want to teach I.D. as a scientific alternative to evolution. Read for yourself. Pay particular attention to Mercer, McElroy, Lowe, Leo, Dunbar, and Bradley, who are some of the worst offenders. They are completely unqualified to render any sort of judgement on these issues, as their own statements show that they have no understanding of the theory of evolution themselves. On top of that, there are enough morons down here that they keep getting voted back in. Morons get elected, make the curriculum worse, creating more morons who'll get elected. It's a vicious cycle.
Justified or not, it shows arrogance and a lack of class. Perhaps I'm insane but I do expect better.
What exactly is wrong with noting that there are people elsewhere creating the same kinds of difficulties that we have to deal with here? It's a kind of commiseration. I don't see the problem here.
They are not just in the southern states.
No, but that's certainly where you'll find them in the highest concentrations.
Eh, only racist rebels down there though, right? Not like us dandy Yankees.
No, but you and others responding like this sure are helping to lend credence to the stereotypes about our education levels down here. He is correct that those who want to teach creationism as science tend to be southerners though. Nowhere in there does he say anything about *all* southerners thinking that way. See the difference?
It's funny how when us southerner "nutjobs" say something about what we believe, so many of you come back with "They are so intolerant", yet it is ok for YOU to lump all southerners in together as nutjobs.
Hypocricy knows no bounds...
How did he lump *all* southerners in as nutjobs? Do you have reading comprehension issues or what? I'm a southerner too, but I don't find anything offensive about that statement. Also, believing with actual evidence is different than just believing.
Douchebag commentary, douchebag.
Commentary seemed pretty spot-on. Don't know what your problem is.