There you go, then. After spewing out fallacies, being caught, trying to deflect the criticism by claiming that the other person is like you and failing, you are now not even trying anymore:)
The dinosaurs didn't have the brain power to ponder such questions. But if you are really denying the evolutionary advantage of working together (and before you try another straw man, this is not necessarily always the case, since different environments give advantages to different traits), then you are merely confirming your ignorance.
In all seriousness, you're trying to claim that in 10 billion years, humans will still be the dominant species.
Nope. It's that straw man of yours again. In fact, I specifically mentioned in my previous comment that I never denied that humanity can go extinct.
Of course, I know better than to expect honesty from a creationist (who even thinks that Evolution is a religion):)
I was pointing out the fact that you fundamentally contradict yourself because you don't accept logical conclusions drawn from its premises.
I did not contradict myself. You are using a straw man to make it look like I contradicted myself.
The point was, and still is, "you don't even believe evolution yourself, you just like certain parts".
This is only true if one accepts your straw man. However, in reality, what I wrote is entirely consistent: Evolution does not mean that humans can't be equal under the law, and I never denied that humanity can go extinct. In the second reply, I merely pointed out that you should stop making bold comments, as your understanding of Evolution is so poor, as demonstrated by your "wouldn't be America" comment. America is America whether ToE is correct or not.
Your "domesticated humans" comment was also a misunderstanding of Evolution. Being part of a strong, tight-knit group has actually shown to be advantageous from an evolutionary perspective.
What are you asserting, then? Your argument in a nutshell seems to be "Evolution is bad, therefore you must stop accepting it".
As for humans and Evolution, I simply pointed out your poor understanding of Evolution, and your continued attempt to use emotion in order to convince me or other readers about your own religious convictions. At least you gave up on the "Evolution is religion" nonsense.
Teachers should be fired if they don't do their job. Just like everyone else. Forcing religion (Creationism) on children to the school system is a serious violation, and should lead to immediate diciplinary action.
There are plenty of well-informed and intelligent people who cannot definitively answer the question of how life began.
I am sure this is the case. Not everyone is updated on the latest events in this area. Not that this is relevant to Evolution. Abiogenesis is a different issue. Evolution deals with how life evolved once it was here, not with how life got started in the first place. But just because some well-informed and intelligent people are ignorant of the latest scientific developments in the area doesn't mean that the science being done doesn't exist. These people could always choose to educate themselves, too, instead of remaining willfully ignorant.
However, you correctly state that they have no doubt that evolution is the correct alternative. To have no doubt in evolution without knowing exactly how it is accomplished is an indication of belief. The teachers, therefore, are already teaching children what some people believe.
No, the teachers are teaching children the current scientific consensus. This consensus has got nothing to do with beliefs. It's all about what the data tells us. Science is always tentative, but Evolutionis one of the most solid scientific theories we have. It has withstood 150 years of scrutiny, and all known facts support it, while none contradict it. As such, there is indeed little doubt that Evolution is correct, but that's not because people choose to believe so. It's because the data tells them that this is the case.
There are plenty of well-informed and intelligent people who question certain points of evolution. This includes Richard Dawkins who suggests that it is possible that life was seeded on Earth by some unknown external entity.
You have been watching Expelled, haven't you? No, Dawkins does not think life was seeded. The context was that the Expelled producers asked him if there was any explanation what so ever of intelligent design that he could picture. He said that being seeded by aliens was the closest thing, but he did not believe that to be the case. So what he was answering was a carefully crafted question, but his answer was taken out of context in Expelled.
How? Evolution is a scientific theory. An explanation. It is not an ideology. It has no rules, no morals, no nothing that would make it even remotely similar to religion. If Evolution is religion, then all scientific theories are religions. Then even politics is religion. Evolution is not a religion, but rather an explanation that:
has huge amounts of data (facts) to support it -- in fact, all known facts support the theory
makes true predictions (if Evolution is true, then the predictions made based on Evolution must also be true, which they are)
has practical applications (vaccines, disease control, etc.)
Whether Hitler adopted evolution per se is trivial. His beliefs were based off atheism and survival of the fittest; so is evolution.
Hitler was brought up a Roman Catholic who believed in the supernatural and constantly referred to God in his speeches. I will also repeat that Hitler rejected Evolution. Please try to use valid arguments and not the typical creationist propaganda pieces.
I will note that you continue to use fallacies like Appeal to Emotion and Appeal to Consequences even after I pointed out to you that they say nothing about the validity of Evolution, though.
As soon as the newest biggest evolutionary breakthrough occurs, we fat complacent blobs of semi-intelligent flesh will the way of the dodo.
Appeal to Consequences again? However, someone with as poor understanding of Evolution as you should perhaps refrain from making bold statements about what Evolution means for humanity. And again, whether it is desirable ir not does not affect the validity of Evolution.
Are you also willing to acknowledge the fact that ToE's followers have aspired to genocide on a scale no religion has ever inspired?
Whether they have or not is irrelevant to whether the theory is valid or not. How desirable something is does not affect whether it exists or not. Your following fallacious Appeal to Consequence and Appleal to Emotion arguments, including "there are no morals if Evolution is true" just shows that you support those who seek to replace science with religion.
I guess I shouldn't even bother, but I'll do it anyway: Hitler actually rejected Evolution. And the parts of Evolution that would have inspired the Holocaust, if any, would be the parts that even Young Earth Creationists accept, namely "micro-evolution". But Hitler got more ideas from Pasteur and Koch than from Evolution.
A domesticated human race is, therefore, disadvantaged in evolutionary terms
No, only in your misunderstanding of evolutionary terms.
The reason why his career would be over is that he would prove himself to be completely unfit for the job. Like an atheist working as a priest. If, as a scientist, you suddenly choose to ignore all known facts and conclude that "God did it", you are not fit to be a scientist.
I really don't think there is anything for us to be worried about here.
You mean apart from all the references to religion?
- "upon 14 request of a city, parish, or other local public school board"> - "review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city,
11 parish, or" (since when did religious groups have anything to do with what we teach in science classes?)
- "This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine" (how is this relevant if it's about science education?)
- "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other..." (parish again? In science?
And what about this?
- "open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including
evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning"
It is just completely incidental that they mention the things where religious fundamentalists are at odds with science?
- "may use textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner"
What textbooks would that be? They already have science textbooks. What else is there?
Evolution hasn't been around long enough to stand the test of time.
"Just" 150 years, and every single new observation/fact we find supports it, in addition to all the already known facts, which without exception support it.
Unfortunately for evolution, since part of its premise includes assumptions of very long periods of time, we will never in our lifetimes see the ultimate acceptance or rejection of evolution as we have seen with things like gravity.
There is no "ultimate acceptance or rejection" beyond becoming a theory. Evolution is a scientific theory, the highest order in science. There is nothing higher on the ladder. Theories are what make science useful. They are the ultimate goal of science.
You are passing on a commong creationist misconception, too: That we must observe something directly to form a scientific explanation. This is not the case. A scientific theory can be tested, not only by direct observations, but also by various data, as well as practical applications and true predictions. Evolution is both supported by all known data, has practical applications, and makes true predictions.
Actually, Flash 9 is not available as an SDK either. The upgrade path from Flash 7 for anything that is not Mac, Windows or Linux is basically Flash Lite 3 (which only supports most of Flash 8). And there will be no Flash Lite unless Nintendo decides to go for it. But why would they go for an only slightly more updated Flash implementation when it's already outdated in the first place?
Then again, maybe this move by Adobe will allow Wii users to enjoy Flash 9...
Opera won't be able to update their browser with a new version of the plugin because Nintendo is in charge. The updates released so far were released by Nintendo, through Nintendo's services. Opera is just the software supplier.
It seems that you were taught wrong. Theories never become facts. Here you go, please read carefully.
There is no real separation between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Only people who are anti-science will do that. No faith is needed for evolution, whether it is "micro" or "macro". It is all about the evidence.
It's fascinating that you believe that the bible adds nothing to scientific insight.
It is a statement of fact, so it is hardly fascinating.
Particularly when the bible itself states that the earth "hangs on nothing", that is to say, it floats in space.
At the same time, it claims that earth is the center of the universe, and so on.
If, however, you are only interested in real scientific facts done by real evolutionary scientists - I'd encourage you to check out Dr. Walt Brown's book "In the Beginning". The entire book is based on research done by scientists with an evolutionary viewpoint.
Your description is dishonest. Walt Brown is an engineer, and a Young Earth Creationist. He did not do any research himself. Rather, his book contains a list of already refuted arguments, many of which even other YECs would disown. The creationist organization Answers in Creation has even published material refutin Brown's nonsense!
Here is a bit of information from TalkOrigins as well.
So basically, you are being dishonest. The book is not based on "an evolutionary viewpoint". It is a rather poor list of arguments for creationism that hold no scientific merit what so ever, and which is even being disowned by other creationists.
The fuss is about the fact that Expelled is merely one piece of a larger picture, which is that religious fundamentalists are actively trying to replace science with religion. And they are aiming this film at their core market: The religious masses who desperately want to justify their beliefs. And to gain traction in order to convince the rest of us.
It's a dangerous movie because its hate-filled rhetoric and blatant misinformation is part of a bigger whole which seeks to undermine science.
No, students need to learn scientific consensus. Scientific consensus might turn out to be wrong, but to find out that it is wrong, you must first know what the scientific consensus is. After you know that, you can either just move on, or you can get to work doing science yourself to verify or invalidate the current consensus. But the foundation is the scientific consensus. Without it, you are without a proper foundation.
But the problem, you see, is that Ben stein is not challenging us to ask questions; he is challenging us to ask his (dishonest) questions. He is not telling us to stand up for our beliefs; he is telling us to stand up for religion in an epic battle with materialistic science. He is not encouraging critical thinking and making people challenge the status quo; he is encouraging his thinking and making people enforce religious dogma at the expense of science and progress.
You have fallen for his tricks. Expelled is full of lies and deception, and your comment about the "group-think boys club" reveals a lot about you and your lack of critical thinking when it comes to these things.
Slashdot Mirror
There you go, then. After spewing out fallacies, being caught, trying to deflect the criticism by claiming that the other person is like you and failing, you are now not even trying anymore :)
The dinosaurs didn't have the brain power to ponder such questions. But if you are really denying the evolutionary advantage of working together (and before you try another straw man, this is not necessarily always the case, since different environments give advantages to different traits), then you are merely confirming your ignorance.
Nope. It's that straw man of yours again. In fact, I specifically mentioned in my previous comment that I never denied that humanity can go extinct.
Of course, I know better than to expect honesty from a creationist (who even thinks that Evolution is a religion) :)
I did not contradict myself. You are using a straw man to make it look like I contradicted myself.
This is only true if one accepts your straw man. However, in reality, what I wrote is entirely consistent: Evolution does not mean that humans can't be equal under the law, and I never denied that humanity can go extinct. In the second reply, I merely pointed out that you should stop making bold comments, as your understanding of Evolution is so poor, as demonstrated by your "wouldn't be America" comment. America is America whether ToE is correct or not.
Your "domesticated humans" comment was also a misunderstanding of Evolution. Being part of a strong, tight-knit group has actually shown to be advantageous from an evolutionary perspective.
What are you asserting, then? Your argument in a nutshell seems to be "Evolution is bad, therefore you must stop accepting it".
As for humans and Evolution, I simply pointed out your poor understanding of Evolution, and your continued attempt to use emotion in order to convince me or other readers about your own religious convictions. At least you gave up on the "Evolution is religion" nonsense.
Teachers should be fired if they don't do their job. Just like everyone else. Forcing religion (Creationism) on children to the school system is a serious violation, and should lead to immediate diciplinary action.
I am sure this is the case. Not everyone is updated on the latest events in this area. Not that this is relevant to Evolution. Abiogenesis is a different issue. Evolution deals with how life evolved once it was here, not with how life got started in the first place. But just because some well-informed and intelligent people are ignorant of the latest scientific developments in the area doesn't mean that the science being done doesn't exist. These people could always choose to educate themselves, too, instead of remaining willfully ignorant.
No, the teachers are teaching children the current scientific consensus. This consensus has got nothing to do with beliefs. It's all about what the data tells us. Science is always tentative, but Evolutionis one of the most solid scientific theories we have. It has withstood 150 years of scrutiny, and all known facts support it, while none contradict it. As such, there is indeed little doubt that Evolution is correct, but that's not because people choose to believe so. It's because the data tells them that this is the case.
You have been watching Expelled, haven't you? No, Dawkins does not think life was seeded. The context was that the Expelled producers asked him if there was any explanation what so ever of intelligent design that he could picture. He said that being seeded by aliens was the closest thing, but he did not believe that to be the case. So what he was answering was a carefully crafted question, but his answer was taken out of context in Expelled.
How? Evolution is a scientific theory. An explanation. It is not an ideology. It has no rules, no morals, no nothing that would make it even remotely similar to religion. If Evolution is religion, then all scientific theories are religions. Then even politics is religion. Evolution is not a religion, but rather an explanation that:
Hitler was brought up a Roman Catholic who believed in the supernatural and constantly referred to God in his speeches. I will also repeat that Hitler rejected Evolution. Please try to use valid arguments and not the typical creationist propaganda pieces.
I will note that you continue to use fallacies like Appeal to Emotion and Appeal to Consequences even after I pointed out to you that they say nothing about the validity of Evolution, though.
Appeal to Consequences again? However, someone with as poor understanding of Evolution as you should perhaps refrain from making bold statements about what Evolution means for humanity. And again, whether it is desirable ir not does not affect the validity of Evolution.
Your premise 1 and 2 are both false. Sorry.
Why?
Exploring Origins
Chemistry teacher, you say?
This is a straw man. All at once? And you are a teacher? Shudder...
They have gone further, and they will continue to do so, despite you and other creationists trying to lie about it.
Whether they have or not is irrelevant to whether the theory is valid or not. How desirable something is does not affect whether it exists or not. Your following fallacious Appeal to Consequence and Appleal to Emotion arguments, including "there are no morals if Evolution is true" just shows that you support those who seek to replace science with religion.
I guess I shouldn't even bother, but I'll do it anyway: Hitler actually rejected Evolution. And the parts of Evolution that would have inspired the Holocaust, if any, would be the parts that even Young Earth Creationists accept, namely "micro-evolution". But Hitler got more ideas from Pasteur and Koch than from Evolution.
No, only in your misunderstanding of evolutionary terms.
I fed the troll. FSM forgive me!
The reason why his career would be over is that he would prove himself to be completely unfit for the job. Like an atheist working as a priest. If, as a scientist, you suddenly choose to ignore all known facts and conclude that "God did it", you are not fit to be a scientist.
You mean apart from all the references to religion?
- "upon 14 request of a city, parish, or other local public school board"> - "review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, 11 parish, or" (since when did religious groups have anything to do with what we teach in science classes?)
- "This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine" (how is this relevant if it's about science education?)
- "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other ..." (parish again? In science?
And what about this?
- "open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning"
It is just completely incidental that they mention the things where religious fundamentalists are at odds with science?
- "may use textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner"
What textbooks would that be? They already have science textbooks. What else is there?
There is no such thing as "scientific orthodoxy". There is, however, scientific consensus, and that is what should be taught in science class.
"Just" 150 years, and every single new observation/fact we find supports it, in addition to all the already known facts, which without exception support it.
There is no "ultimate acceptance or rejection" beyond becoming a theory. Evolution is a scientific theory, the highest order in science. There is nothing higher on the ladder. Theories are what make science useful. They are the ultimate goal of science.
You are passing on a commong creationist misconception, too: That we must observe something directly to form a scientific explanation. This is not the case. A scientific theory can be tested, not only by direct observations, but also by various data, as well as practical applications and true predictions. Evolution is both supported by all known data, has practical applications, and makes true predictions.
Then again, maybe this move by Adobe will allow Wii users to enjoy Flash 9...
Opera can't do anything without Nintendo's approval, so...
Opera won't be able to update their browser with a new version of the plugin because Nintendo is in charge. The updates released so far were released by Nintendo, through Nintendo's services. Opera is just the software supplier.
Not sure. Nintendo would have to request it from Opera in any case. Opera can't just put stuff in there without Nintendo's approval.
:)
There is no real separation between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Only people who are anti-science will do that. No faith is needed for evolution, whether it is "micro" or "macro". It is all about the evidence.
Here is a bit of information from TalkOrigins as well.
So basically, you are being dishonest. The book is not based on "an evolutionary viewpoint". It is a rather poor list of arguments for creationism that hold no scientific merit what so ever, and which is even being disowned by other creationists.
It's a dangerous movie because its hate-filled rhetoric and blatant misinformation is part of a bigger whole which seeks to undermine science.
And yes, ID = Creationism = religion.
No, students need to learn scientific consensus. Scientific consensus might turn out to be wrong, but to find out that it is wrong, you must first know what the scientific consensus is. After you know that, you can either just move on, or you can get to work doing science yourself to verify or invalidate the current consensus. But the foundation is the scientific consensus. Without it, you are without a proper foundation.
You have fallen for his tricks. Expelled is full of lies and deception, and your comment about the "group-think boys club" reveals a lot about you and your lack of critical thinking when it comes to these things.