I don't agree with the sticker of course, because I believe that what Darwin observed does exist. I don't believe that man originated through evolution, but I believe that God created the earth and the things on it with a certain level of tolerance and adaptability.
Well, your religion is evolving to survive the age of enlightenment. You have to let go of thousands of years of philosophy about perfection and god and the world he created, but whatever it takes, eh?
Anyway, you're allowed to believe what you will, and unlike them sticker-making folks, you seem willing to accept compromise and other points of view. So I like your religion... it seems less inclined to setting me on fire when the revolution comes : )
I was thinking of the morse-codish language the descaloda had. It's the first thing that popped into my head when morse-code and cells came together in a sentence. More so than gattaca....I don't know I haven't seen Gattaca.
Ahhh... yeah... vague recollections... : )
Anyway: SEE GATTACA!
It's excellent hard sci-fi that even non-sci-fi lovers can enjoy. Nothing unbelievable, good acting, excellent aesthetics, and it's a great story about humanity and perseverance. I highly recommend it.
>Then I want a sticker in all bibles: "God is a myth, not a fact", and that statement is also completely true.
That's a flawed comparison. A _correct_ one would be "not all material in this book has been proven." There are quite a few things in the bible that have been proven. Besides, anyone who blatently goes around yelling "God doesn't exist" is more close-minded than a stereo-typical southern baptist. Have you ever even bothered to think "what if"? Or are you too afraid of what you might find? Creepy, eh?
I said, and you quoted, "God is a myth, not a fact". YOU say I said "God doesn't exist".
So firts off, STFU and don't put words in my mouth, you words are dirty.
Secondly, god is a myth:
Main Entry: myth Pronunciation: 'mith Function: noun Etymology: Greek mythos 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence 4 : the whole body of myths
So until you can prove that your god exists, deal with the fact that it's a myth.
Who says what is "fittest"? More important question -- who, or what, deemed that survival should occur in the first place?
No one, you anthropomorphizing addict.
Who said that survival is some sort of fitness?
Darwin. Sheesh, that one was easy.
Fit for what?
Reproduction of your genes.
Why is survival a principle that matters?
Because those that do not survive are not here anymore to matter.
This is a very basic principle, your pathetic need for a finality, for a leader to have made it so, for a purpose, is preventing you from understanding it, apparently.
I want a sticker in all bibles: "God is a myth, not a fact", and that statement is also completely true.
Replace 'myth' with 'theory'
No:
Main Entry: myth Pronunciation: 'mith Function: noun Etymology: Greek mythos 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence 4 : the whole body of myths
How does an intermediate form without the benefits of its fully evolved descendant qualify as fittest?
By having an advantage over it's direct competitors: The other members of it's species that have not had this mutation.
All sea anemones can bend their bodies, but only a few species can do it energetically enough to "swim". Basic mutation, it's just an extreme for of a behaviour common to all other related species, but this one gives them a great advantage: running away from starfish predators.
For example: until an intermediate form that's not quite a bird can fly, it's a
Glider.
Flight is what makes birds survivable species.
Ostrich. Penguin. Kiwi.
The primary function of feathers was heat insulation. Specialised, alongated feathers allowed for lift.
punctuated equlibrium - birds came about suddenly as a result of a mutation.
Mutations. Plural. Punctuated equilibrium means over a geologically short period of time, not in one generation. Get your head out of the "spontaneous generation" clouds.
OK, so what are the chances that two mutants identical enough to produce offspring were born close enough together (both temporally and geographically) that they could mate?
Close to nil, but that's not at all how evolution works, so that probability is irrelevant.
Two members of the same species have DIFFERENT mutations that when put together (directly or through their respective descendants) changes the offsprings significantly. Rinse, repeat.
You clearly have no real understanding of the mechanism of natural selection. Let me guess: Creationists explained it to you?
I guess I have no idea how the mod system works. Regardless, that should not be a five.
Well, it's now been incorrectly modded "flamebait" and "troll". Doesn't fit the requirements for either of these, but since there isn't a "-1: Blasphemous", the mods who disagree abuse the system.
You're confusing microevolution with macroevolution. I want to know who on gods green earth OBSERVED monkeys turning into humans.
Ah, great, you refuse to believe in anything that takes longer than our short human lifespans to happen.
But aside from that nonsense, here's an interresting point of "macro"evolution: Look at a wolf. Good, good, notice the yellow eyes, the firm, proud buttocks, and the shading of the pelt. Now, look at a chihuahua.
It is not clear to me what the sticker has to do with separation of church and state.
It was carefully worded that way. It's called being "sneaky".
People have not yet been able to create anything nearly as complex as a machine which can produce more of itself outside of laboratory conditions, and the idea that such machines just "happened" accidentally is far-fetched at best.
It's far fetched, but here we are. We happened, kinda hard not to accept that.
What I have a problem with is a judge thinks this label somehow establishes religion.
It clearly does: By undermining science. It was worded in a way to obfuscate that fact, but the separation of church and state isn't "unless you can say it cleverly".
Besides, science admits that spontaneous generation happened in the past -- otherwise, whence did life evolve in the first place?
No.
Science says that complex chemical interactions evolved into a primitive life form under unique circumstances. Not that the first cell was spontaneously created.
Structures similar to cell walls have been shown to form naturally. Amino acids form naturally in space... We're still fuzzy on the details, but that doesn't mean that the theory is wrong or that we should use magical beings as an explanation instead. It just means that there is still some discoveries to be made.
Why would a text book need a disclaimer regarding one of the theories discussed?
Why is evolution the only theory that needs a disclaimer?
Why is there a sticker warning the user that the book contains material on evolution? Makes it easier to identify when the book burnings start?
The other warning labels I know of regarding content are for sexual situations and offensive language. Why is this scientific theory treated like pornography and obscenity?
how exactly does one call this a "creationist textbook sticker?"
It is a disclaimer designed to discredit the content of the textbook by it's very presence.
It was carefully worded in a way to be sneaky enough to get pass the likes of you, but the intent is still clear: It's a baby step on the way towards obscurantism.
Slashdot Mirror
do we allow kids to throw salt over their shoulder, for good luck?
Yes! Dear GOD yes we allow it.
We just don't teach it in science class or include disclaimer stickers in statistics text books to that effect. But we sure do allow it!
Ohhhh! The children might actualy question evolution! They might listen to what these "christian nut jobs" have to say about it!
Seriously though, why is it such a horible thing to have an alternate view presented.
Even though you forgot the question mark, I'll awnser your "question":
Because of the separation of church and state.
In science class, they get taught science.
No one is forcing churches to explain why Lamarck was wrong to their faithfull, so why would you want schools to indoctrinate children in your myths?
Science and religeon can coexist.
I don't agree with the sticker of course, because I believe that what Darwin observed does exist. I don't believe that man originated through evolution, but I believe that God created the earth and the things on it with a certain level of tolerance and adaptability.
Well, your religion is evolving to survive the age of enlightenment. You have to let go of thousands of years of philosophy about perfection and god and the world he created, but whatever it takes, eh?
Anyway, you're allowed to believe what you will, and unlike them sticker-making folks, you seem willing to accept compromise and other points of view. So I like your religion... it seems less inclined to setting me on fire when the revolution comes : )
I was thinking of the morse-codish language the descaloda had. It's the first thing that popped into my head when morse-code and cells came together in a sentence. More so than gattaca....I don't know I haven't seen Gattaca.
Ahhh... yeah... vague recollections... : )
Anyway: SEE GATTACA!
It's excellent hard sci-fi that even non-sci-fi lovers can enjoy. Nothing unbelievable, good acting, excellent aesthetics, and it's a great story about humanity and perseverance. I highly recommend it.
I think that answers your subject heading too. ;)
Well, er, those were rethorical questions, but seeing the quality of thought displayed in most replies I get, I think they needed that. So, thanks ; )
That's a flawed comparison. A _correct_ one would be "not all material in this book has been proven." There are quite a few things in the bible that have been proven. Besides, anyone who blatently goes around yelling "God doesn't exist" is more close-minded than a stereo-typical southern baptist. Have you ever even bothered to think "what if"? Or are you too afraid of what you might find? Creepy, eh?
I said, and you quoted, "God is a myth, not a fact".
YOU say I said "God doesn't exist".
So firts off, STFU and don't put words in my mouth, you words are dirty.
Secondly, god is a myth:
So until you can prove that your god exists, deal with the fact that it's a myth.
Who says what is "fittest"?
More important question -- who, or what, deemed that survival should occur in the first place?
No one, you anthropomorphizing addict.
Who said that survival is some sort of fitness?
Darwin.
Sheesh, that one was easy.
Fit for what?
Reproduction of your genes.
Why is survival a principle that matters?
Because those that do not survive are not here anymore to matter.
This is a very basic principle, your pathetic need for a finality, for a leader to have made it so, for a purpose, is preventing you from understanding it, apparently.
a Bonobo who decided walking erect was a better idea after injuring her back? Google is your friend. She's in an Israeli zoo...
Wasn't that a baboon?
Bonobos walk erect on their own all the time in the wild.
I want a sticker in all bibles: "God is a myth, not a fact", and that statement is also completely true.
Replace 'myth' with 'theory'
No:
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths
How does an intermediate form without the benefits of its fully evolved descendant qualify as fittest?
By having an advantage over it's direct competitors: The other members of it's species that have not had this mutation.
All sea anemones can bend their bodies, but only a few species can do it energetically enough to "swim". Basic mutation, it's just an extreme for of a behaviour common to all other related species, but this one gives them a great advantage: running away from starfish predators.
For example: until an intermediate form that's not quite a bird can fly, it's a
Glider.
Flight is what makes birds survivable species.
Ostrich.
Penguin.
Kiwi.
The primary function of feathers was heat insulation. Specialised, alongated feathers allowed for lift.
punctuated equlibrium - birds came about suddenly as a result of a mutation.
Mutations. Plural.
Punctuated equilibrium means over a geologically short period of time, not in one generation. Get your head out of the "spontaneous generation" clouds.
OK, so what are the chances that two mutants identical enough to produce offspring were born close enough together (both temporally and geographically) that they could mate?
Close to nil, but that's not at all how evolution works, so that probability is irrelevant.
Two members of the same species have DIFFERENT mutations that when put together (directly or through their respective descendants) changes the offsprings significantly. Rinse, repeat.
You clearly have no real understanding of the mechanism of natural selection. Let me guess: Creationists explained it to you?
I guess I have no idea how the mod system works. Regardless, that should not be a five.
Well, it's now been incorrectly modded "flamebait" and "troll". Doesn't fit the requirements for either of these, but since there isn't a "-1: Blasphemous", the mods who disagree abuse the system.
You're confusing microevolution with macroevolution. I want to know who on gods green earth OBSERVED monkeys turning into humans.
Ah, great, you refuse to believe in anything that takes longer than our short human lifespans to happen.
But aside from that nonsense, here's an interresting point of "macro"evolution: Look at a wolf. Good, good, notice the yellow eyes, the firm, proud buttocks, and the shading of the pelt. Now, look at a chihuahua.
That's right.
Evolution operates. What is behind the evolution? Can science deal with that?
Yes, Mr. Lamarck, it can: It shall be henceforth known as "survival of the fittest".
It is not clear to me what the sticker has to do with separation of church and state.
It was carefully worded that way.
It's called being "sneaky".
People have not yet been able to create anything nearly as complex as a machine which can produce more of itself outside of laboratory conditions, and the idea that such machines just "happened" accidentally is far-fetched at best.
It's far fetched, but here we are. We happened, kinda hard not to accept that.
Ok, I'm serious. No one has ever proved it without taking "God is a myth" as a base statement.
You might be serious, but you're not coherent.
Bashing religious people, especially Christians, is easy.
Yup, all you need is a good club. Especially real christians: they turn the other cheek.
You can only mod a post once.
So, that subject line there should have "moderators", plural, not cingular.
What I have a problem with is a judge thinks this label somehow establishes religion.
It clearly does: By undermining science.
It was worded in a way to obfuscate that fact, but the separation of church and state isn't "unless you can say it cleverly".
For one, the theory is that humans evolved from apes. Apes aren't monkeys.
Actually, all current great apes evolved from the same ancestors as humans.
I know you didn't specify "current", but let's not allow these implications to float around freely under these circumstances.
Besides, science admits that spontaneous generation happened in the past -- otherwise, whence did life evolve in the first place?
No.
Science says that complex chemical interactions evolved into a primitive life form under unique circumstances.
Not that the first cell was spontaneously created.
Structures similar to cell walls have been shown to form naturally. Amino acids form naturally in space... We're still fuzzy on the details, but that doesn't mean that the theory is wrong or that we should use magical beings as an explanation instead. It just means that there is still some discoveries to be made.
Why would a text book need a disclaimer regarding one of the theories discussed?
Why is evolution the only theory that needs a disclaimer?
Why is there a sticker warning the user that the book contains material on evolution? Makes it easier to identify when the book burnings start?
The other warning labels I know of regarding content are for sexual situations and offensive language. Why is this scientific theory treated like pornography and obscenity?
how exactly does one call this a "creationist textbook sticker?"
It is a disclaimer designed to discredit the content of the textbook by it's very presence.
It was carefully worded in a way to be sneaky enough to get pass the likes of you, but the intent is still clear: It's a baby step on the way towards obscurantism.
The statement on the front of the book, whether motivated by religion or not, is completley true. Evolution IS a theory, and not a fact.
Then I want a sticker in all bibles: "God is a myth, not a fact", and that statement is also completely true.
Xenocide.
Admitadly, I've been trying to forget that book, so you'll have to help me out.
How was Xenocide more related to biotech than Gattaca?
The pianist in Gattaca had 12 fingers, you said 6, you must have been thinking of each hand.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.