(Part 2): One other note. On the archeological aspect of stories in the Bible, I think we agree. I'd love to find out which stories are true... but one must remember that archeology is far different from stories of things that have happened - even if those stories can be used for the basis of some scientific exploration.
That of course also applies to ID and creationism. They are just stories. There's nothing even remotely scientific that can be tested or analyzed. In their cases, they are starting points that lead nowhere, because, unlike historical events during human existence and places written about in the Bible, there are no specifics to analyze. That is why it is not science nor scientific. Science is not about simply proposing theories. That's just what most people in the "outside world" of "non-science" see. They do not see the tests, counter tests, attempts to prove, attempts to disprove, the facts, figures and theories and numerous other factors that are involved in a completed theory.
The problem is, ALL of those are part and parcel to the definition of science and scientific theories. Without all of those, one cannot call something a scientific theory or science simply because of the definition of such. The only words left that apply are: (a) stories, (b) myths, and/or (c) predictions. Perhaps they were based on some science (that fits the actual definition of the word), but there is no such information to support such in the Bible. That's the problem. Now, if someone were to come up with a lost book of the Bible that dealt with say... creation... and it contained the theories/facts behind the process, steps, interactions, results, counter-tests and such, THEN I would most definitely think it's something that should be taught as a scientific theory. But no such book of the Bible exists.
We cannot simply re-define the word science because of people's religious beliefs. And though the Old Testament (like many things) is contrary on this, the New Testament (other than the few contradictory parts) are kinda against forceful indoctrination of people into the religion. Which is what forcing religious teachings (as science or otherwise) on people would be. And of course, as already mentioned, it's against the law. The whole religious freedom thing and all.
Your ideas on the subject are irrelevant. I kinda truly believe you think there's scientific value in it, and that it thus should be taught as such. In that, I respect your reasoning (and vehemently disagree because it would require re-defining the word science)... but that's not why it's irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the people who propose and push for this stuff, largely, are right wing religious people who what to use it as a stepping stone for religious indoctrination, and a stepping stone for teaching more faith/religion based things in schools to the willing and unwilling alike - thus violating both the law of man and the law of your god. It's not your intent on this that I am at odds with (even with disagreeing with the subject matter). It is the intent of those who are behind such initiatives.
If *you* were the sole supporter of this, then maybe things would be a different story, because as I said, I truly think you believe this a valid avenue of scientific study. But you are not. I've spent the time to see who it is who backs, sponsors, proposes and supports such bills every time they come around - and it's always the same religious right that wants to make our school systems into religious indoctrination camps. There's the problem. And those (NOT you) are the ones who I refer to as idiots in earlier posts. To clearly go against the laws of both man and god, and to deceitfully (and thus again against the laws of man and god) try to (on each new outing) hide that their efforts are religious indoctrination are hippocrites and idiots. Remember, this started with them trying to teach Genesis, using the Bible as a teaching tool, and then teach much more of "science" as lessons from the Bible. When they were tol
In other responses in this same topic area I have given several examples of predictions utilizing Genesis or some other portion of the bible. Why do you assume that I am a layman? Because I disagree with an established orthodoxy?
I've seen no such posts by you. Please feel free to point me to some.
The initial conditions of an on-going process are often crucial in determining the course of error, (If one is investigating an undesirable phenomenon) or the reason for success, (if one is attempting to replicate a particular success.)
The bible does not present a 'flat earth'. Those that argued for a flat earth against Galileo in 1633 did so not from the bible, but from the authority of a man (the pope) to decide what the bible says, not from the text (Isaiah 40:22, with controversy).
Ah... the POPE's interpretations of the Bible were wrong. What makes YOUR interpretations more special and more accurate than one of the Pope's who is supposedly god's representative on Earth? See the fallacy with your excuse? If you invalidate his, god's representative's interpretation, then yours must be even less valid.
Those same folks, in 1572, committed a genocide against people for the 'crime' of reading the bible. It sounds like you would not be terribly upset if a vocal genocide were committed against folks (like myself) who hold the bible as true.
Don't be a bigoted idiot - I *know*, our argument aside, that you've got better in you. I would NEVER wish harm on you or anyone else. Heck, stranger that you are, I'd probably, without a thought, step in to protect you from unwarranted harm (and I have done so in the past for other strangers, because I *cannot stand* seeing someone needlessly hurt. It feels like it's a part of me that's getting lost right alongside them). I don't have to believe what you do to hold life precious - FAR more so than those who have professed Christianity & Judaism and caused UNENDING wars and holy crusades in the name of their god. Far more than some of the vocal nutjobs who, to this day, call for the death of many people for all sorts of bigoted reasons (which, I do NOT include you in - I *REFUSE* to group every Christian in the category of nutcases who "claim" to represent the religion, and I am SURE, however firm in your beliefs you are, that you do NOT fit into that category - just wanted to clear that up now, before you misinterpret that). So, I *refuse* to group you in with any such category, and I hope you will not consider to do so with me again. I do not agree with your beliefs, but I respect them and will fight for your right to have them. Heck, to clarify something else, it's not your beliefs that I think are idiotic (in case you got that opinion from my past posts), it's people who think that religion-as-science should be taught, or that it's anything other than an attempt to indoctrinate people into a religion... or the fact that doing so is ILLEGAL and AGAINST other's religious beliefs, which I am equally adamant about being respected. See why I call it idiotic? It's discrimination, it's against the LAW, and it's against the tenets of your (and other) religions to thinly disguise religious indoctrination as science class.
On the subject of a 6K year old earth, remember that the bible presents a world that has been subjected to some very severe upsets, Genesis 6 and 7 (Noah's flood) being an obvious example. It is not inconsistent with the world of geology that we see, in fact it predicts precisely the world we see: Sediment every where, except where mid-flood and post-flood Orogeny has pushed mountains through. Both ideas are contained in the account of flood.
And none of which explain a 6,000 year old Earth, nor why the flooding was not worldwide, nor the idiotic impossibility of Noah being able to take two of every species on the planet onto an ark not nearly large enough for two of every animal species in simply a larg
Here's the part you don't realize. I've got nothing against your religion. Or against it's quaint stories. I think if the latter part (namely Jesus' teachings) are followed, it's a good thing.
But, bashing people over the head with religion-as-science is... well, against your religion, isn't it? And proposing to teach religion-as-science is... well, kinda retarded, isn't it?
Here's the funny thing; there's nothing in either which discounts the other really. You argue against the scientific theories of the creation of this universe as if something in the Bible contradicts them. It doesn't. Genesis (at least one account of it, anyway) kinda fits nicely with the theory of the Bing Bang - if one assumes god's days are a lot longer than a human's.
So, what annoys me is you want to teach a layman's understanding of the creation of the universe, as outlined in your creation myths, as science to counter current scientific theory that they really are not at odds with. Get it now?
This whole time, I've been waiting for even one example of a scientific explanation (from the Bible) for the creation of the universe and evolution - but you have not provided one. Perhaps because I posted numerous times that I would not accept "It's god's way" (or other such nonsense) as a scientific argument?
Failing such an example that can actually be scientifically evaluated and debated, I will continue to rant - because anything else you post in defense of ID is simply nonsense, since you have not (and seem unwilling to) provide a single scientific reason, theory or whatever proposed in the Bible.
It's not my fault that "some magical being that always existed and is all powerful created everything, according to his Master Plan" is not a scientific theory. And it's not my fault that you cannot explain the science behind it. And it's not my fault that I am not stupid enough to take on faith stories that are from a book of myths.
Which brings us back to "why don't you seem willing to give as much weight to other myth's creation stories?" - a question you have yet to answer. Probably because this is NOT about science and is ALL about furthering/defending your religious (NOT science) beliefs. Those two are not one in the same and should NOT be mixed. Otherwise, we'd all have to believe the world is flat and only 6,000 years old... you know, like it tells us in the Bible. It's all or nothing. You cannot claim the Bible is a valid historical or scientific reference without including that nonsense. So... is the world only 6,000 years old and flat? If you answer no, then it's just as absurd to think the Bible is an acceptable source on a subject FAAAAAAR more complex than those two.
Your religion of evolution does not make scientific predictions. It cannot, because at the core it calls for a random process. It can, however make philosophical predictions: since the universe is random, no outcome is any different from any other, since a good role of the dice on Tuesday can be wiped out by a bad one on Friday.
You have decided the bible is myth. You might also decide that I am a petunia, but that would not make it so. The bible may be true. Why are you so opposed to the idea of subjecting evolution to the light of an opposing view? is it because there are weaknesses in evolution that come to light when examined closely?
I happen to prefer the second law of thermodynamics. Every know process exhibits compliance to the laws of thermodynamics. Evolution theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by proposing an uncaused decrease in entropy. This is religious faith, not science.
OK, now you are making absolutely no sense. None whatsoever. You see evolution as random, unlike those who study it. You also see the scientific theories of evolution and the creation of the universe as "religious faith" and think they should be discounted because of that, YET think that the (once again) MYTHS in the Bible should be believed, even though they are clearly religious beliefs (regardless of you not having the comprehension capabilities to realize that the DEFINITION of a myth applies to them to the letter).
Got it. No point in arguing further. I'll simply close with the definition of the Bible... errr, I mean the definition of a myth (oh, wait, they happen to be one in the same!!!)
myth: a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.
Yup, that's the Bible to the letter. Keep your religious idiocy out of science. They are not one in the same. A myth is not science.
I said the Bible is book of history, at least the part of Genesis you are concerned with, which is the creation account. I would say that your understanding of the bible has been disproved, but that is no great feat. Why should the creation of the universe be simple and easy to understand? It seems to me that it might well be a complex process that we do not understand, filled with things that appear to a superficial analysis to be contradictory. Is it possible that there are clues provided about the universe that we do not yet have the science for? Might the problem be with us, and not a God imaginative enough to create all we see?
Your analysis of my argument missed my point, which is that a theory should make predictions about that world that can be tested. ID makes predictions, so does evolution. ID predicts that there is a design behind the universe, and that it is discoverable. Evolution predicts that the universe is ultimately random.
My point about archeology is that there are provable points in the bible that have been found to be correct. That does not mean that I (Or anyone) understand all that is there. I say investigate the text to see if there are clues to what appear to be contradictions.
There are better forums to discuss bible proofs, I would suggest that those might be a better place to find out about contradictions, if you wish.
Science requires full examination of a theory, not blind agreement just because it is in a 'Science Journal' full examination requires full disclosure of assumptions, caveats, problem with the data sets and the willingness to discuss alternative theory.
I'm not in the least bit being uncivilized. I emphasized the points that you missed in my first post, even though they were spelled out pretty clearly, that way you wouldn't miss them again.
(1) The Bible is not a book of history. It is a collection of myths, where like most myths, some portion thereof is based on historical events. Any other thought on the matter is idiocy. The fact that it has so many conflicting stories on the same subjects makes it useless as a history book.
(2) My understanding of the Bible has not been disproved. Unlike most other people, I've read the whole thing - cover to cover. Maybe that's why I've seen all the numerous inconsistencies, exaggerations and contradictions.
(3) No one said the creation of the universe should be simple and easy to understand. No matter whether they abscribe to the Biblical myth or to the scientific theories. This is thus irrelevant to the discussion.
(4) A god imaginative to create all we see, and us in his own image has to be pretty darn flawed, wouldn't you say? A god that wipes out most of existence, apologizes and says he wont do it again - and then DOES IT AGAIN is pretty flawed, don't you think? Not likely to be the creator of something like the universe when he's gotten so much wrong.
(5) There are NO forums to discuss biblical proofs, as there are no proofs in the Bible. Every such discussion seems to end in "it's god's way" or "it's god's will" or "it's god's Master Plan" - that isn't proof of anything. There's the fallacy in trying to have any such discussion when uber-religious people keep using that as the be-all-end-all of the argument. How do you argue against such nonsense? It's not proof of anything at all. This applies to the contradictions as well.
(6) ID predicts nothing other than "it's god's Master Plan" (AFTER the fact). That's not a prediction. One cannot predict something after it happens and then point to the Bible with "It's god's Master Plan"
(7) Archeology of what? That certain events happened to a limited extent, like the flood? That proves little other than in some historic contexts, the Bible is somewhat kinda almost correct. Nothing more. Which is exactly what I would expect from a book of MYTHS. Even in that respect, on our 6,000 year old Earth, it makes all of that
As the majority of people would prefer a cheap computer (with bloatware) over one with no bloatware
I actually think that is false, most people don't understand the difference. I take my brother as a prime example. He bought a new dell laptop, it was actually pretty damn beefy and he just wanted it to work fast. Within a month he physically threw it across the room, but some miracle the only thing that broke was the hard drive which I replaced for him and reinstalled windows. He could not believe the difference in speed, claiming I must have done something else to the machine and why the fuck was dell making the machine intentionally so slow. If he had had a choice between bloatware and a fast machine for a a littl emore money he would have chosen the faster machine.
The "most people don't understand the difference" part of your statement is the part you are forgetting. They don't know a lot of the problem is bloatware. And they want a cheap machine - not one that will cost $100 more. So... after the fact, with the help of someone technologically savvy (namely you) he realized the cause and came to that conclusion. Most people do not have that luxury, and just want a cheap machine.
That aside, and possibly also related to this, bloatware of certain categories helps fund the support marketplace.
Isn't that the old broken window fallacy?
Experience indicates it is not. Of new and recent purchase machines we see/saw for malware issues (both here, and when I worked for CompUSA), the vast majority of them were there because a piece of AV trialware expired and wasn't protecting their systems. I know Microsoft for one, has bragged to us at CompUSA how their latest debacle is good because it will make us money. Kinda like the minimum recommended requirements of some of their products (that will barely get the machine booting, much less running something like Office 2010). One example from the past was when, before the Win95 release, I took an idiot with a chair and the Programming Manager for Win95 to task over the incorrect requirements printed on the original Win95 box (4MB instead of the 8MB required for installation), and they said (paraphrased) "(we) should be happy because (we) would be making more money off upgrades from people who erroneously bought it for an underpowered machine" (this was during a nationwide teleconference (one way voice and video of them, two way voice via phone and video) with all the CompUSA stores' tech people and GMs). BTW, they were not enthused with my call (or my prior one). On the first call, they blocked our call-in number, so my GM gave me his phone to make the second call from. On the second call, at the end of the call, they asked to speak to my tech manager... I offered to do one better for them by giving them my store manager - they hung up rather frustrated. I think parts of their "involvement" and "pressure" on CompUSA in such things may have become part of the evidence submitted in the DOJ case...
But I digress... the point is, I suspect that such things haven't really changed. If you buy a machine, it does not come with a warranty that covers software related issues. The OEMs make a decent amount of money on such support calls. Presumably, so does Microsoft. I'm not saying it's the reason - I am though saying it is an arrangement beneficial to the OEMs, Microsoft and support markets - one which I am sure they are happy with.
Everyone insists on taking this topic in the wrong direction. This is not about crapware installed before you buy the computer--which is bad enough--this is about unnecessary software, such as all the extra stuff that comes with HP printer drivers and Adobe pdf readers. There is no apparent reason for HP printer drivers to run into the 100's of MB's, nor pdf readers.
Agreed. Some of it is laziness... like the "fits everything 32bit" or "fits everything 64bit" printer drivers. And the rest of it is... well... laziness (in coding) too. In some cases, some vendors have claimed it's to circumvent weirdness/bugs/unexpected results in Windows itself. I am not well enough versed on the current state of the back end of Windows to know how true that remains, but it definitely did apply in the past (where developers would either rely on quirks in the Windows code, or have to write around quirks in the Windows code). And of course, in some cases, it's to try to have as much platform independent stuff in the code as possible. OpenOffice is supposedly an example of this. By not tying it to Windows specific calls, it has allowed for MacOSX, Linux and OS/2 versions with very little additional work - at the cost of having a very large program.
Now, some software writers don't have such excuses - namely Microsoft (have you seen the size of Office 2010?). But that's probably a debate for another topic.
Bloatware is generally on a computer to help subsidize the cost down to "commodity item" prices.
Yeah, that's the company line, but there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the quantity of bloatware and the markup of a machine. At least, that's what I'd expect to see if the manufacturers were truly using it to keep costs low. I can only conclude, then, that the bloatware is bloating the manufacturer's profits rather than the consumer's wallet.
Though I wont outright disagree with this, I also won't outright agree with it. Computer technology has been aggressively improving in certain areas, and in some of those areas, the pricing does not make sense with the costs of plain ol' hardware. I do suspect that on some machines, there is a greater margin to be made, even with the bloatware (or the amount of bloatware), but you must remember, that's normal and par for the course. It has been that way since before machines started coming with bloatware. It's like buying a $50 inkjet printer - the profit is near zero... but buying a $1,000 inkjet actually has a decent little profit margin with it. Computers are much the same. So, in a way, I guess you are correct. But it simply doesn't seem too relevant because that's the way it's always been. Also, I suspect the OEMs get better deals for agreeing to install "Crapware X" on all desktop home PCs, and "Crapware Y" on all home user laptops - all while the markup on the higher end machines is still a higher markup (just like in the past before the advent of crapware installation).
When I speak of "OEM" disks I am not talking about "recovery disks".
I am talking about a real OS install disk (old school style). Although this is a cost itself.
Ah, apologies. That would fit the scenario I described above about Dell's OEM disks then. The only difference with them and ones that could be purchased from places like NewEgg were that the Dell ones were Dell branded (the magentas and purples, and with the Dell logo) and had Dell specific OEM mass-install key support (ie: one disk would support a massive set of machines and their keys).
Of course, Microsoft (since the pre-release days of Vista) has done their best to convince OEMs to not provide such disks, and instead offer restore alternatives that are tied to the specific hardware (with a restore partition/program being the preferred method, followed by restore disks or a restore disk builder that created machine specific image restore disks - which of course meant "might as well include the crapware" since it was easier that way). In that, I can't fault the OEMs too much for that (at least not the ones that previously provided actual OEM Windows disks).
Some of the cheapest machines come without any OS at all.
But are pieces of crap I would not wish on my worst enemy. Virtually NO Windows machine built by any decent sized OEM comes without bloatware.
It's also pretty easy to beat name brand OEMs with quasi-DIY sellers on the web.
As I suggested. Though I beg to differ on the pricing - except, as noted, when one buys an el-crappo machine. I can build one for $200 - but it will barely run Windows 7 and decent sized apps like Office 2010 and say... Quickbooks 2010 at the same time.;-)
So the idea that all machines need to be subsidized through shovelware and bloatware is a little absurd.
The OS itself plays a large part in this.
Some stuff is just bloated by itself even if you install it off of OEM disks without adding any other nonsense.
Because the OEM disks often include the bloatware slipstreamed into them. One notable exception, back in the day, was Dell, which provided an OS disk, a driver disk (or disks) and a bunch of bloatware disks (and even those didnt always include all the bloatware that came on the machine). Others, like the HP Restore Sets, image the machine to the exact way it was when it was shipped to the retailer; bloatware and all.
Bloatware is generally on a computer to help subsidize the cost down to "commodity item" prices. Removing the bloatware will increase the price of a computer. As the majority of people would prefer a cheap computer (with bloatware) over one with no bloatware, this is something unlikely to change.
That aside, and possibly also related to this, bloatware of certain categories helps fund the support marketplace. Most notably are things like trial antivirus software, that numerous computer purchasers let the trial expire and no longer receive definition updates, putting them at risk of malware infections. I've had a lot of customers come in with infected machines and tell me "but I had CrappyTrial 2011 installed" - at which point I find that the trialware subscription service expired 3 months ago. As sad as it is, I know it helps our business gain tech work. And I am sure it helps the big box places as well.
Other options include having a machine custom built - which of course will mean paying more, since there are generally no bloatware subsidies. At least on a PC, it's pretty easy to remove the bloatware.
Why is there a problem with proposing a theory contradicting Evolution? Evolution as a theory should make predictions about the world the can be proved or disproved. ID as a theory should make predictions about the world the can be proved or disproved.
"It's god's will" or "it's god's master plan" is the only "prediction: about ID ever made - and supposed to be accepted as the "be all, end all answer" of the argument on this topic.
What prediction does random evolution provide?
Random evolution? There are a bunch of predictions about "random" evolution.
I want to know why Obama hasn't closed the damn place yet. One of the major reasons I voted democratic in the last presidential election was to put an end to this sort of thing.
Because you were silly enough to believe that there really are two parties with different agendas and concerns? I gave up on believing that fantasy a long time ago... shortly after I found out that the tooth fairy wasn't real either. Actually, I'd say there's more evidence for the tooth fairy being real than there is evidence that the democratic and republican parties are much different when it comes to things of this nature.;-)
It is NOT an attack against the author. It is an attack against the absurdity of using MYTHS as the basis for scientific discussion. That aside, as YOU personally admitted, the Bible is NOT a book of science, and thus, nothing in it should be treated as such.
As for disproving the Bible, TONS of people have done that... and get told they are wrong because "god works in mysterious ways" and "god put the dinosaur bones on the Earth to test us and our beliefs in what's in the Bible" (namely the 6,000 year old Earth nonsense) and so on. People CANNOT simply dismiss such efforts to disprove the Bible with such nonsense responses. MUCH of the Bible has been disproven. MUCH of the Bible is filled with contradictions. Heck, there are TWO contradictory stories of the creation of the Earth alone.
I think that if religious based concepts are to be presented as alternative "theories" to scientific theories, then they should be treated as scientific theories. That means we now get to question religious based concepts, in particular the documents upon which they are based. In the Old Testament, there are several inconsistencies starting with the first book where there are two accounts of creation. Let's teach the controversy...please. It is the least we can do.
The problem with the scientifically minded people is that they are constantly playing defense in this cultural war. It is time to take the offense and show up all the inconsistencies inherent in the major (and minor) religions.
Sadly, there are those in the scientific community (and elsewhere) who have tried that... the stock answers are that "(we) must have faith..." and "god and his workings are beyond the comprehension of our feeble-minded human brains" and other such nonsense that is supposed to be a real answer proving that everything in the Bible on the subject, contradictory or not, is accurate. There isn't much way to fight against such nonsensical answers.
BTW, you can prove they're not ripping-off Google's results easily. Just search for a keyword with more searchers. And... lo and behold... Bing's results are different.
"BTW, you can prove (the times they are NOT ripping off Google's results) that they are not ripping off Google's results... but the rest of the time they are (which is why, even the web snippets are identical)."
It seems like the Earth being 6k years old is a theory that could be tested, just as live arising by evolutionary process is a theory that can be tested.
What is not science is to reject a view based on your dislike of it.
Why not present evidence? Facts. Not interpretations of findings, but actual facts? Please do not say 'scientists say.' Such a statement is simply replacing Moses in Genesis as an authority with the editors at 'Scientific American'.
They need only be open-minded enough to see that they themselves are wrong.
And you are naive enough to think that religious zealots and religious right wing nut jobs (the same who keep pushing these idiotic laws) are open minded enough to see that they themselves are wrong? If so, you really need to wake up to the real world and take a look around you.
I'm going to be downmodded to death, but isn't science about keeping an open mind? Here in my country school curricula are rigid, limited and biased government mandated crap. As long as the teacher doesn't lie/make things up, teaching the kids to question everything and see both sides of an issue will only do them good. The intelligent ones will eventually make their own decision about who's right or wrong, and the stupid ones will believe what they'll believe anyway...
Not to the point of absurdity. "Keeping an open mind" does NOT consist of "believing in myths, simply because the myths say they are true and divine and unprovable".
See the difference? On one hand, there's "keeping an open mind", and on the other there's "being an idiot because you think that because a myth tells you something is real and you have to simply believe it on faith, and thus anyone who isn't 'open minded' enough to fall for such a fallacy in logic is wrong."
Pretty bold statement, but it is true. Take AGW for example, it is taught as 'settled science, the Truth which must not be questioned.' But if it is science it should be falsifiable and it isn't
I might be mistaken, but part of the bill seemed directed at allowing teachers to dissent on AGW as well.
Climate change is different than AGW... even though some people tend to try to group them together (which is quite detrimental to such science as a whole). By studying climate change (as opposed to focusing on AGW), one can determine/learn/theorize more about climate change and it's causes - as opposed to having "predetermined" a cause and looking for "proof". I'm not saying that AGW is wrong (or right). I'm saying it is simply a subset of the study of climate change. The climate has always been changing. We've been studying that for years before AGW was even a topic of discussion.
If you have not listened to many anti-evolution or anti-climate change arguments, how can you state that they are full of serious flaws?
I have listened to many of the anti-evolution "arguments" and I learned something very important. It turns out they aren't really arguments at all. They are instead simply stories being recited from a book of mythology. I think that book's name is "The Bible" or some such.
So... how could you claim that those arguments are not full of serious flaws? I give those arguments as much weight as any other book of mythology. Inotherwords, NONE - they are not books of science. They are a collection of myths. Anyone who claims that such collections of myths are scientific theories is an outright idiot. Simply put. Nothing personal to those of you who are outright idiots... it just happens to be true.
Slashdot Mirror
And in other news, Google decides to disconnect the MPAA from the internet.
A far more possible scenario - unless the MPAA are that far in bed with DHS.
(Part 2): One other note. On the archeological aspect of stories in the Bible, I think we agree. I'd love to find out which stories are true... but one must remember that archeology is far different from stories of things that have happened - even if those stories can be used for the basis of some scientific exploration.
That of course also applies to ID and creationism. They are just stories. There's nothing even remotely scientific that can be tested or analyzed. In their cases, they are starting points that lead nowhere, because, unlike historical events during human existence and places written about in the Bible, there are no specifics to analyze. That is why it is not science nor scientific. Science is not about simply proposing theories. That's just what most people in the "outside world" of "non-science" see. They do not see the tests, counter tests, attempts to prove, attempts to disprove, the facts, figures and theories and numerous other factors that are involved in a completed theory.
The problem is, ALL of those are part and parcel to the definition of science and scientific theories. Without all of those, one cannot call something a scientific theory or science simply because of the definition of such. The only words left that apply are: (a) stories, (b) myths, and/or (c) predictions. Perhaps they were based on some science (that fits the actual definition of the word), but there is no such information to support such in the Bible. That's the problem. Now, if someone were to come up with a lost book of the Bible that dealt with say... creation... and it contained the theories/facts behind the process, steps, interactions, results, counter-tests and such, THEN I would most definitely think it's something that should be taught as a scientific theory. But no such book of the Bible exists.
We cannot simply re-define the word science because of people's religious beliefs. And though the Old Testament (like many things) is contrary on this, the New Testament (other than the few contradictory parts) are kinda against forceful indoctrination of people into the religion. Which is what forcing religious teachings (as science or otherwise) on people would be. And of course, as already mentioned, it's against the law. The whole religious freedom thing and all.
Your ideas on the subject are irrelevant. I kinda truly believe you think there's scientific value in it, and that it thus should be taught as such. In that, I respect your reasoning (and vehemently disagree because it would require re-defining the word science)... but that's not why it's irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the people who propose and push for this stuff, largely, are right wing religious people who what to use it as a stepping stone for religious indoctrination, and a stepping stone for teaching more faith/religion based things in schools to the willing and unwilling alike - thus violating both the law of man and the law of your god. It's not your intent on this that I am at odds with (even with disagreeing with the subject matter). It is the intent of those who are behind such initiatives.
If *you* were the sole supporter of this, then maybe things would be a different story, because as I said, I truly think you believe this a valid avenue of scientific study. But you are not. I've spent the time to see who it is who backs, sponsors, proposes and supports such bills every time they come around - and it's always the same religious right that wants to make our school systems into religious indoctrination camps. There's the problem. And those (NOT you) are the ones who I refer to as idiots in earlier posts. To clearly go against the laws of both man and god, and to deceitfully (and thus again against the laws of man and god) try to (on each new outing) hide that their efforts are religious indoctrination are hippocrites and idiots. Remember, this started with them trying to teach Genesis, using the Bible as a teaching tool, and then teach much more of "science" as lessons from the Bible. When they were tol
In other responses in this same topic area I have given several examples of predictions utilizing Genesis or some other portion of the bible. Why do you assume that I am a layman? Because I disagree with an established orthodoxy?
I've seen no such posts by you. Please feel free to point me to some.
The initial conditions of an on-going process are often crucial in determining the course of error, (If one is investigating an undesirable phenomenon) or the reason for success, (if one is attempting to replicate a particular success.)
The bible does not present a 'flat earth'. Those that argued for a flat earth against Galileo in 1633 did so not from the bible, but from the authority of a man (the pope) to decide what the bible says, not from the text (Isaiah 40:22, with controversy).
Ah... the POPE's interpretations of the Bible were wrong. What makes YOUR interpretations more special and more accurate than one of the Pope's who is supposedly god's representative on Earth? See the fallacy with your excuse? If you invalidate his, god's representative's interpretation, then yours must be even less valid.
Those same folks, in 1572, committed a genocide against people for the 'crime' of reading the bible. It sounds like you would not be terribly upset if a vocal genocide were committed against folks (like myself) who hold the bible as true.
Don't be a bigoted idiot - I *know*, our argument aside, that you've got better in you. I would NEVER wish harm on you or anyone else. Heck, stranger that you are, I'd probably, without a thought, step in to protect you from unwarranted harm (and I have done so in the past for other strangers, because I *cannot stand* seeing someone needlessly hurt. It feels like it's a part of me that's getting lost right alongside them). I don't have to believe what you do to hold life precious - FAR more so than those who have professed Christianity & Judaism and caused UNENDING wars and holy crusades in the name of their god. Far more than some of the vocal nutjobs who, to this day, call for the death of many people for all sorts of bigoted reasons (which, I do NOT include you in - I *REFUSE* to group every Christian in the category of nutcases who "claim" to represent the religion, and I am SURE, however firm in your beliefs you are, that you do NOT fit into that category - just wanted to clear that up now, before you misinterpret that). So, I *refuse* to group you in with any such category, and I hope you will not consider to do so with me again. I do not agree with your beliefs, but I respect them and will fight for your right to have them. Heck, to clarify something else, it's not your beliefs that I think are idiotic (in case you got that opinion from my past posts), it's people who think that religion-as-science should be taught, or that it's anything other than an attempt to indoctrinate people into a religion... or the fact that doing so is ILLEGAL and AGAINST other's religious beliefs, which I am equally adamant about being respected. See why I call it idiotic? It's discrimination, it's against the LAW, and it's against the tenets of your (and other) religions to thinly disguise religious indoctrination as science class.
On the subject of a 6K year old earth, remember that the bible presents a world that has been subjected to some very severe upsets, Genesis 6 and 7 (Noah's flood) being an obvious example. It is not inconsistent with the world of geology that we see, in fact it predicts precisely the world we see: Sediment every where, except where mid-flood and post-flood Orogeny has pushed mountains through. Both ideas are contained in the account of flood.
And none of which explain a 6,000 year old Earth, nor why the flooding was not worldwide, nor the idiotic impossibility of Noah being able to take two of every species on the planet onto an ark not nearly large enough for two of every animal species in simply a larg
No one single thing sank the titanic
Hubris sank the Titanic.
I thought it was the iron...
Ismay: [incredulously] But this ship can't sink!
Thomas Andrews: She's made of iron, sir! I assure you, she can... and she will!! It is a mathematical certainty.
;-) Gotta admit that had me cracking up when I watched that scene... ummm... not that I watched the movie... or anything...
Here's the part you don't realize. I've got nothing against your religion. Or against it's quaint stories. I think if the latter part (namely Jesus' teachings) are followed, it's a good thing.
But, bashing people over the head with religion-as-science is... well, against your religion, isn't it? And proposing to teach religion-as-science is... well, kinda retarded, isn't it?
Here's the funny thing; there's nothing in either which discounts the other really. You argue against the scientific theories of the creation of this universe as if something in the Bible contradicts them. It doesn't. Genesis (at least one account of it, anyway) kinda fits nicely with the theory of the Bing Bang - if one assumes god's days are a lot longer than a human's.
So, what annoys me is you want to teach a layman's understanding of the creation of the universe, as outlined in your creation myths, as science to counter current scientific theory that they really are not at odds with. Get it now?
This whole time, I've been waiting for even one example of a scientific explanation (from the Bible) for the creation of the universe and evolution - but you have not provided one. Perhaps because I posted numerous times that I would not accept "It's god's way" (or other such nonsense) as a scientific argument?
Failing such an example that can actually be scientifically evaluated and debated, I will continue to rant - because anything else you post in defense of ID is simply nonsense, since you have not (and seem unwilling to) provide a single scientific reason, theory or whatever proposed in the Bible.
It's not my fault that "some magical being that always existed and is all powerful created everything, according to his Master Plan" is not a scientific theory. And it's not my fault that you cannot explain the science behind it. And it's not my fault that I am not stupid enough to take on faith stories that are from a book of myths.
Which brings us back to "why don't you seem willing to give as much weight to other myth's creation stories?" - a question you have yet to answer. Probably because this is NOT about science and is ALL about furthering/defending your religious (NOT science) beliefs. Those two are not one in the same and should NOT be mixed. Otherwise, we'd all have to believe the world is flat and only 6,000 years old... you know, like it tells us in the Bible. It's all or nothing. You cannot claim the Bible is a valid historical or scientific reference without including that nonsense. So... is the world only 6,000 years old and flat? If you answer no, then it's just as absurd to think the Bible is an acceptable source on a subject FAAAAAAR more complex than those two.
Your religion of evolution does not make scientific predictions. It cannot, because at the core it calls for a random process. It can, however make philosophical predictions: since the universe is random, no outcome is any different from any other, since a good role of the dice on Tuesday can be wiped out by a bad one on Friday.
You have decided the bible is myth. You might also decide that I am a petunia, but that would not make it so. The bible may be true. Why are you so opposed to the idea of subjecting evolution to the light of an opposing view? is it because there are weaknesses in evolution that come to light when examined closely?
I happen to prefer the second law of thermodynamics. Every know process exhibits compliance to the laws of thermodynamics. Evolution theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by proposing an uncaused decrease in entropy. This is religious faith, not science.
OK, now you are making absolutely no sense. None whatsoever. You see evolution as random, unlike those who study it. You also see the scientific theories of evolution and the creation of the universe as "religious faith" and think they should be discounted because of that, YET think that the (once again) MYTHS in the Bible should be believed, even though they are clearly religious beliefs (regardless of you not having the comprehension capabilities to realize that the DEFINITION of a myth applies to them to the letter).
Got it. No point in arguing further. I'll simply close with the definition of the Bible... errr, I mean the definition of a myth (oh, wait, they happen to be one in the same!!!)
myth: a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.
Yup, that's the Bible to the letter. Keep your religious idiocy out of science. They are not one in the same. A myth is not science.
There is no call for being uncivilized.
I said the Bible is book of history, at least the part of Genesis you are concerned with, which is the creation account. I would say that your understanding of the bible has been disproved, but that is no great feat. Why should the creation of the universe be simple and easy to understand? It seems to me that it might well be a complex process that we do not understand, filled with things that appear to a superficial analysis to be contradictory. Is it possible that there are clues provided about the universe that we do not yet have the science for? Might the problem be with us, and not a God imaginative enough to create all we see?
Your analysis of my argument missed my point, which is that a theory should make predictions about that world that can be tested. ID makes predictions, so does evolution. ID predicts that there is a design behind the universe, and that it is discoverable. Evolution predicts that the universe is ultimately random.
My point about archeology is that there are provable points in the bible that have been found to be correct. That does not mean that I (Or anyone) understand all that is there. I say investigate the text to see if there are clues to what appear to be contradictions.
There are better forums to discuss bible proofs, I would suggest that those might be a better place to find out about contradictions, if you wish.
Science requires full examination of a theory, not blind agreement just because it is in a 'Science Journal' full examination requires full disclosure of assumptions, caveats, problem with the data sets and the willingness to discuss alternative theory.
I'm not in the least bit being uncivilized. I emphasized the points that you missed in my first post, even though they were spelled out pretty clearly, that way you wouldn't miss them again.
(1) The Bible is not a book of history. It is a collection of myths, where like most myths, some portion thereof is based on historical events. Any other thought on the matter is idiocy. The fact that it has so many conflicting stories on the same subjects makes it useless as a history book.
(2) My understanding of the Bible has not been disproved. Unlike most other people, I've read the whole thing - cover to cover. Maybe that's why I've seen all the numerous inconsistencies, exaggerations and contradictions.
(3) No one said the creation of the universe should be simple and easy to understand. No matter whether they abscribe to the Biblical myth or to the scientific theories. This is thus irrelevant to the discussion.
(4) A god imaginative to create all we see, and us in his own image has to be pretty darn flawed, wouldn't you say? A god that wipes out most of existence, apologizes and says he wont do it again - and then DOES IT AGAIN is pretty flawed, don't you think? Not likely to be the creator of something like the universe when he's gotten so much wrong.
(5) There are NO forums to discuss biblical proofs, as there are no proofs in the Bible. Every such discussion seems to end in "it's god's way" or "it's god's will" or "it's god's Master Plan" - that isn't proof of anything. There's the fallacy in trying to have any such discussion when uber-religious people keep using that as the be-all-end-all of the argument. How do you argue against such nonsense? It's not proof of anything at all. This applies to the contradictions as well.
(6) ID predicts nothing other than "it's god's Master Plan" (AFTER the fact). That's not a prediction. One cannot predict something after it happens and then point to the Bible with "It's god's Master Plan"
(7) Archeology of what? That certain events happened to a limited extent, like the flood? That proves little other than in some historic contexts, the Bible is somewhat kinda almost correct. Nothing more. Which is exactly what I would expect from a book of MYTHS. Even in that respect, on our 6,000 year old Earth, it makes all of that
As the majority of people would prefer a cheap computer (with bloatware) over one with no bloatware
I actually think that is false, most people don't understand the difference. I take my brother as a prime example. He bought a new dell laptop, it was actually pretty damn beefy and he just wanted it to work fast. Within a month he physically threw it across the room, but some miracle the only thing that broke was the hard drive which I replaced for him and reinstalled windows. He could not believe the difference in speed, claiming I must have done something else to the machine and why the fuck was dell making the machine intentionally so slow. If he had had a choice between bloatware and a fast machine for a a littl emore money he would have chosen the faster machine.
The "most people don't understand the difference" part of your statement is the part you are forgetting. They don't know a lot of the problem is bloatware. And they want a cheap machine - not one that will cost $100 more. So... after the fact, with the help of someone technologically savvy (namely you) he realized the cause and came to that conclusion. Most people do not have that luxury, and just want a cheap machine.
That aside, and possibly also related to this, bloatware of certain categories helps fund the support marketplace.
Isn't that the old broken window fallacy?
Experience indicates it is not. Of new and recent purchase machines we see/saw for malware issues (both here, and when I worked for CompUSA), the vast majority of them were there because a piece of AV trialware expired and wasn't protecting their systems. I know Microsoft for one, has bragged to us at CompUSA how their latest debacle is good because it will make us money. Kinda like the minimum recommended requirements of some of their products (that will barely get the machine booting, much less running something like Office 2010). One example from the past was when, before the Win95 release, I took an idiot with a chair and the Programming Manager for Win95 to task over the incorrect requirements printed on the original Win95 box (4MB instead of the 8MB required for installation), and they said (paraphrased) "(we) should be happy because (we) would be making more money off upgrades from people who erroneously bought it for an underpowered machine" (this was during a nationwide teleconference (one way voice and video of them, two way voice via phone and video) with all the CompUSA stores' tech people and GMs). BTW, they were not enthused with my call (or my prior one). On the first call, they blocked our call-in number, so my GM gave me his phone to make the second call from. On the second call, at the end of the call, they asked to speak to my tech manager... I offered to do one better for them by giving them my store manager - they hung up rather frustrated. I think parts of their "involvement" and "pressure" on CompUSA in such things may have become part of the evidence submitted in the DOJ case...
But I digress... the point is, I suspect that such things haven't really changed. If you buy a machine, it does not come with a warranty that covers software related issues. The OEMs make a decent amount of money on such support calls. Presumably, so does Microsoft. I'm not saying it's the reason - I am though saying it is an arrangement beneficial to the OEMs, Microsoft and support markets - one which I am sure they are happy with.
Everyone insists on taking this topic in the wrong direction. This is not about crapware installed before you buy the computer--which is bad enough--this is about unnecessary software, such as all the extra stuff that comes with HP printer drivers and Adobe pdf readers. There is no apparent reason for HP printer drivers to run into the 100's of MB's, nor pdf readers.
Agreed. Some of it is laziness... like the "fits everything 32bit" or "fits everything 64bit" printer drivers. And the rest of it is... well... laziness (in coding) too. In some cases, some vendors have claimed it's to circumvent weirdness/bugs/unexpected results in Windows itself. I am not well enough versed on the current state of the back end of Windows to know how true that remains, but it definitely did apply in the past (where developers would either rely on quirks in the Windows code, or have to write around quirks in the Windows code). And of course, in some cases, it's to try to have as much platform independent stuff in the code as possible. OpenOffice is supposedly an example of this. By not tying it to Windows specific calls, it has allowed for MacOSX, Linux and OS/2 versions with very little additional work - at the cost of having a very large program.
Now, some software writers don't have such excuses - namely Microsoft (have you seen the size of Office 2010?). But that's probably a debate for another topic.
Bloatware is generally on a computer to help subsidize the cost down to "commodity item" prices.
Yeah, that's the company line, but there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the quantity of bloatware and the markup of a machine. At least, that's what I'd expect to see if the manufacturers were truly using it to keep costs low. I can only conclude, then, that the bloatware is bloating the manufacturer's profits rather than the consumer's wallet.
Though I wont outright disagree with this, I also won't outright agree with it. Computer technology has been aggressively improving in certain areas, and in some of those areas, the pricing does not make sense with the costs of plain ol' hardware. I do suspect that on some machines, there is a greater margin to be made, even with the bloatware (or the amount of bloatware), but you must remember, that's normal and par for the course. It has been that way since before machines started coming with bloatware. It's like buying a $50 inkjet printer - the profit is near zero... but buying a $1,000 inkjet actually has a decent little profit margin with it. Computers are much the same. So, in a way, I guess you are correct. But it simply doesn't seem too relevant because that's the way it's always been. Also, I suspect the OEMs get better deals for agreeing to install "Crapware X" on all desktop home PCs, and "Crapware Y" on all home user laptops - all while the markup on the higher end machines is still a higher markup (just like in the past before the advent of crapware installation).
When I speak of "OEM" disks I am not talking about "recovery disks".
I am talking about a real OS install disk (old school style). Although this is a cost itself.
Ah, apologies. That would fit the scenario I described above about Dell's OEM disks then. The only difference with them and ones that could be purchased from places like NewEgg were that the Dell ones were Dell branded (the magentas and purples, and with the Dell logo) and had Dell specific OEM mass-install key support (ie: one disk would support a massive set of machines and their keys).
Of course, Microsoft (since the pre-release days of Vista) has done their best to convince OEMs to not provide such disks, and instead offer restore alternatives that are tied to the specific hardware (with a restore partition/program being the preferred method, followed by restore disks or a restore disk builder that created machine specific image restore disks - which of course meant "might as well include the crapware" since it was easier that way). In that, I can't fault the OEMs too much for that (at least not the ones that previously provided actual OEM Windows disks).
Some of the cheapest machines come without any OS at all.
But are pieces of crap I would not wish on my worst enemy. Virtually NO Windows machine built by any decent sized OEM comes without bloatware.
It's also pretty easy to beat name brand OEMs with quasi-DIY sellers on the web.
As I suggested. Though I beg to differ on the pricing - except, as noted, when one buys an el-crappo machine. I can build one for $200 - but it will barely run Windows 7 and decent sized apps like Office 2010 and say... Quickbooks 2010 at the same time. ;-)
So the idea that all machines need to be subsidized through shovelware and bloatware is a little absurd.
The OS itself plays a large part in this.
Some stuff is just bloated by itself even if you install it off of OEM disks without adding any other nonsense.
Because the OEM disks often include the bloatware slipstreamed into them. One notable exception, back in the day, was Dell, which provided an OS disk, a driver disk (or disks) and a bunch of bloatware disks (and even those didnt always include all the bloatware that came on the machine). Others, like the HP Restore Sets, image the machine to the exact way it was when it was shipped to the retailer; bloatware and all.
Bloatware is generally on a computer to help subsidize the cost down to "commodity item" prices. Removing the bloatware will increase the price of a computer. As the majority of people would prefer a cheap computer (with bloatware) over one with no bloatware, this is something unlikely to change.
That aside, and possibly also related to this, bloatware of certain categories helps fund the support marketplace. Most notably are things like trial antivirus software, that numerous computer purchasers let the trial expire and no longer receive definition updates, putting them at risk of malware infections. I've had a lot of customers come in with infected machines and tell me "but I had CrappyTrial 2011 installed" - at which point I find that the trialware subscription service expired 3 months ago. As sad as it is, I know it helps our business gain tech work. And I am sure it helps the big box places as well.
Other options include having a machine custom built - which of course will mean paying more, since there are generally no bloatware subsidies. At least on a PC, it's pretty easy to remove the bloatware.
Why is there a problem with proposing a theory contradicting Evolution? Evolution as a theory should make predictions about the world the can be proved or disproved. ID as a theory should make predictions about the world the can be proved or disproved.
"It's god's will" or "it's god's master plan" is the only "prediction: about ID ever made - and supposed to be accepted as the "be all, end all answer" of the argument on this topic.
What prediction does random evolution provide?
Random evolution? There are a bunch of predictions about "random" evolution.
I want to know why Obama hasn't closed the damn place yet. One of the major reasons I voted democratic in the last presidential election was to put an end to this sort of thing.
Because you were silly enough to believe that there really are two parties with different agendas and concerns? I gave up on believing that fantasy a long time ago... shortly after I found out that the tooth fairy wasn't real either. Actually, I'd say there's more evidence for the tooth fairy being real than there is evidence that the democratic and republican parties are much different when it comes to things of this nature. ;-)
It is NOT an attack against the author. It is an attack against the absurdity of using MYTHS as the basis for scientific discussion. That aside, as YOU personally admitted, the Bible is NOT a book of science, and thus, nothing in it should be treated as such.
As for disproving the Bible, TONS of people have done that... and get told they are wrong because "god works in mysterious ways" and "god put the dinosaur bones on the Earth to test us and our beliefs in what's in the Bible" (namely the 6,000 year old Earth nonsense) and so on. People CANNOT simply dismiss such efforts to disprove the Bible with such nonsense responses. MUCH of the Bible has been disproven. MUCH of the Bible is filled with contradictions. Heck, there are TWO contradictory stories of the creation of the Earth alone.
I think that if religious based concepts are to be presented as alternative "theories" to scientific theories, then they should be treated as scientific theories. That means we now get to question religious based concepts, in particular the documents upon which they are based. In the Old Testament, there are several inconsistencies starting with the first book where there are two accounts of creation. Let's teach the controversy...please. It is the least we can do.
The problem with the scientifically minded people is that they are constantly playing defense in this cultural war. It is time to take the offense and show up all the inconsistencies inherent in the major (and minor) religions.
Sadly, there are those in the scientific community (and elsewhere) who have tried that... the stock answers are that "(we) must have faith..." and "god and his workings are beyond the comprehension of our feeble-minded human brains" and other such nonsense that is supposed to be a real answer proving that everything in the Bible on the subject, contradictory or not, is accurate. There isn't much way to fight against such nonsensical answers.
BTW, you can prove they're not ripping-off Google's results easily. Just search for a keyword with more searchers. And... lo and behold... Bing's results are different.
"BTW, you can prove (the times they are NOT ripping off Google's results) that they are not ripping off Google's results... but the rest of the time they are (which is why, even the web snippets are identical)."
FTFY.
It seems like the Earth being 6k years old is a theory that could be tested, just as live arising by evolutionary process is a theory that can be tested.
What is not science is to reject a view based on your dislike of it.
Why not present evidence? Facts. Not interpretations of findings, but actual facts? Please do not say 'scientists say.' Such a statement is simply replacing Moses in Genesis as an authority with the editors at 'Scientific American'.
It HAS been tested. Stop being so absurd.
Can you find even ONE reputable scientist that claims the Theory of Evolution is FACT?
There is a reason it is a theory.
But the Bible is fact? That's where this law is going... disproving science using the Bible.
They need only be open-minded enough to see that they themselves are wrong.
And you are naive enough to think that religious zealots and religious right wing nut jobs (the same who keep pushing these idiotic laws) are open minded enough to see that they themselves are wrong? If so, you really need to wake up to the real world and take a look around you.
I'm going to be downmodded to death, but isn't science about keeping an open mind? Here in my country school curricula are rigid, limited and biased government mandated crap. As long as the teacher doesn't lie/make things up, teaching the kids to question everything and see both sides of an issue will only do them good. The intelligent ones will eventually make their own decision about who's right or wrong, and the stupid ones will believe what they'll believe anyway...
Not to the point of absurdity. "Keeping an open mind" does NOT consist of "believing in myths, simply because the myths say they are true and divine and unprovable".
See the difference? On one hand, there's "keeping an open mind", and on the other there's "being an idiot because you think that because a myth tells you something is real and you have to simply believe it on faith, and thus anyone who isn't 'open minded' enough to fall for such a fallacy in logic is wrong."
Pretty bold statement, but it is true. Take AGW for example, it is taught as 'settled science, the Truth which must not be questioned.' But if it is science it should be falsifiable and it isn't
I might be mistaken, but part of the bill seemed directed at allowing teachers to dissent on AGW as well.
Climate change is different than AGW... even though some people tend to try to group them together (which is quite detrimental to such science as a whole). By studying climate change (as opposed to focusing on AGW), one can determine/learn/theorize more about climate change and it's causes - as opposed to having "predetermined" a cause and looking for "proof". I'm not saying that AGW is wrong (or right). I'm saying it is simply a subset of the study of climate change. The climate has always been changing. We've been studying that for years before AGW was even a topic of discussion.
If you have not listened to many anti-evolution or anti-climate change arguments, how can you state that they are full of serious flaws?
I have listened to many of the anti-evolution "arguments" and I learned something very important. It turns out they aren't really arguments at all. They are instead simply stories being recited from a book of mythology. I think that book's name is "The Bible" or some such.
So... how could you claim that those arguments are not full of serious flaws? I give those arguments as much weight as any other book of mythology. Inotherwords, NONE - they are not books of science. They are a collection of myths. Anyone who claims that such collections of myths are scientific theories is an outright idiot. Simply put. Nothing personal to those of you who are outright idiots... it just happens to be true.