[RodeoRanch]

Ugh.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

There were 8 anti-evolution/pro-intelligent design bills introduced in 6 states during 2008. Bills in Alabama, Florida, Missouri and South Carolina were shot down. As far as I know, the two in Michigan are still in Committee. Louisiana passed a bill encouraging science teachers to teach alternate theories of evolution, the origin of life and climate change. I expect to see yet another court case in the near future, with concerned parents and the ACLU trying to have it stricken down.

[flea]

Terez, on Jan 10 2009, 08:16 AM, said:

Disclaimer stickers for Mississippi textbooks:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01...ississippis.php

And legislation for Oklahoma:

http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/01/antievolut...-moves-by-rail=

Makes one ashamed to be an American.

[HoosierDaddy]

I think Gem might have been run off. She hasn't visited since that debacle on the 5th where Terez, CI, and Dolorous got after her.

[Cold Iron]

She'll be back

[Terez]

It was more than just me and CI and DM, lol.

[HoosierDaddy]

Oh, I know it was more than just you three. But if you look at the page before this... it gets pretty rocky for her there and you three were the main causes of the unsettling of her position. And, evidently she didn't leave because she was in the Brood thread earlier. So, I guess the shenanigans will continue at some point.

On topic: I saw Scientific American in the library the other day, and the whole issue was devoted to evolution, and had a section that detailed "proof" of evolution within some sort of fish over 10,000 generations. Evidently it had adapted to better suit around 5 different oceanic or aquatic (can't remember which) ecosystems. I'd start posting here but I went to the site but it was a "premium" site and there was no way I was spending money on this unwinnable debate.

[Shinrei]

But...but... you're saying I can't WIN?

Damn, what's the point.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

HoosierDaddy, on Jan 15 2009, 05:03 PM, said:

Oh, I know it was more than just you three. But if you look at the page before this... it gets pretty rocky for her there and you three were the main causes of the unsettling of her position. And, evidently she didn't leave because she was in the Brood thread earlier. So, I guess the shenanigans will continue at some point.

On topic: I saw Scientific American in the library the other day, and the whole issue was devoted to evolution, and had a section that detailed "proof" of evolution within some sort of fish over 10,000 generations. Evidently it had adapted to better suit around 5 different oceanic or aquatic (can't remember which) ecosystems. I'd start posting here but I went to the site but it was a "premium" site and there was no way I was spending money on this unwinnable debate.

The article speaks about sticklebacks and how the three species that were existant in the wild at the end of the last Ice Age evolved after the various newly formed lakes and rivers became isolated from each other. Although it mentions that there were three species to start with it doesn't state how many there are today. (I have the magazine sitting in my bookshelf- I pulled the information about state bills introduced in 2008 from this as well.)

[HoosierDaddy]

Well there you go, our own Scientific America(n).

[Gothos]

Cold Iron, on Jan 5 2009, 09:23 AM, said:

3. Many atheists look down on the religious as unenlightened, unintelligent and uninformed. This one actually amuses me and it really just comes down to attitude. It's most often those who are ignorant and uninformed themselves that are guilty of this and are simply attempting to hide their self-perceived inadequacies. If you are sufficiently informed about both religion and science, you will see no grounds in either from which to look down upon the other, and those who do will cease to bother you.

I'll just adress this, since arguing with Gem Windcaster has about as much sense as... as... I'm out of parallels.
anyway, from my PoV, I see perfectly intelligent and reasonable people that just don't want to see and think like, imo, a modern, progressive human being should. It's incredibly frustrating to me that many bright minds of the XXI century still clinge to tribal ritualism and the tenets of a religion that is terribly, terribly outdated. tradition is all cool, but only as long as it makes sense in reference to the present. it's also awfully frustrating that it's quite impossible to change someone's mind about being religious. that's how I see this problem anyway.

[Cold Iron]

Gothos, on Mar 30 2009, 12:01 AM, said:

I'll just adress this, since arguing with Gem Windcaster has about as much sense as... as... I'm out of parallels.
anyway, from my PoV, I see perfectly intelligent and reasonable people that just don't want to see and think like, imo, a modern, progressive human being should. It's incredibly frustrating to me that many bright minds of the XXI century still clinge to tribal ritualism and the tenets of a religion that is terribly, terribly outdated. tradition is all cool, but only as long as it makes sense in reference to the present. it's also awfully frustrating that it's quite impossible to change someone's mind about being religious. that's how I see this problem anyway.

I see this as a different problem altogether. Literalism. *spit* That anyone can ignore the metaphores, analogues and hidden meaning throughout all religious teachings astounds me. Refusing something on the sole grounds that it contradicts with a literal interpretation of scripture is not "being religious", it's being a moron.

[Sindriss]

Indeed, that is just plain stupid. And yet it happens every day for billions of people. Sometimes that really depresses me

"Many atheists look down on the religious as unenlightened, unintelligent and uninformed."

Sometimes, I have to admit this happens to me. I am not proud of it but I cannot help think about it.

[stone monkey]

This would seem to be an interesting point to make about abiogenesis. From what I can gather (no chemist I) it suggests that the earliest building blocks that make up life (as we know it) are favoured by thermodynamics. Which might suggest (my own very tentative suppositions, these) that life could not have not originated in the conditions of the early earth.

Anyway, food for thought.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 20 April 2009 - 11:33 PM

[Cold Iron]

Cool link SM. Of course you know that life has not been synthesised from amino acids. That the same amino acids should exist everywhere is interesting but it is a large leap from this to the proposition that life could not have not formed in early earth conditions.

[Cold Iron]

More along the lines of SM's link above. Organic molecules found in space:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/21/o...ules-space.html

[Mentalist]

heh
reading some of Gem's last posts, I see her challenging the people that consider the theory of evolution to be correct (I will not use the word "believe" here) to "prove" the theory.

now, that statement is fundamentally flawed, because you can NEVER "prove" a scientific theory.
one of the underpinnings o scientific process is falsifiability--any theory must account for an observation, or event that could disprove it.

if the theory of evolution was not falsifiable, it would not be scientific. It would be pseudo-science.
Thus, Gem's desire to "prove" evolution is impossible. Rather, she has to present evidence that would contradict the theory.

In general, if I may make an observation, the way people throw the words "evidence" and "proof" around seem more suited to a judicial context. Which is not the same as a scientific one. That may be a reason for the misunderstnding/disagreement here.

now, whilst I am not incredibly religious and faithful, I have no problem incorporating God into the story of life. I see no conflict between this and the theory of evolution. Whilst I don't share the arguments of the so-called "intelligent design" theorists in the States (their approach is too crude), I do not see any direct contradictions between religion and the theory of evolution.

[Cold Iron]

Mentalist, on Apr 22 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

In general, if I may make an observation, the way people throw the words "evidence" and "proof" around seem more suited to a judicial context. Which is not the same as a scientific one. That may be a reason for the misunderstnding/disagreement here.

This comment is pertinent to the real god thread. I will think on it

[cauthon]

Mentalist, on Apr 22 2009, 02:35 AM, said:

now, whilst I am not incredibly religious and faithful, I have no problem incorporating God into the story of life. I see no conflict between this and the theory of evolution. Whilst I don't share the arguments of the so-called "intelligent design" theorists in the States (their approach is too crude), I do not see any direct contradictions between religion and the theory of evolution.

That of course depends on the viewpoint of the religious person. Some catholics are convinced that God created life through evolutionary processes, even though their holy book says otherwise. Still, the bible clearly says that species would beget according to their kind, so that rules out evolution.

I've been pondering what has been said here and I do understand why 'scientists' do not want to use the God mode. Even so, I do not see a reason why they would have to, imo, one can perfectly do research on physics, chemistry, biology, etc. without resorting to evolution.

Ghent uni has these neat posters where they encourage people to think, and on some, they oppose the darwinism vs. adam & eve. But does believing the A&E story really mean that one does not think? I think, that, after having considered the 'evidence', I have made an informed decision not to go with evolution. But that does not mean that I oppose science, the scientific method, etc. I'm just not buying a small part of what I am seeing. In my work, I'm coming across 'scientific' claims every day, that make no sense (I'm a computer science researcher), so don't be too quick to say that I've no scientific experience. I've seen the claims, checked the evidence and for me, it just points the other way.


Now, fire away :-)

And please somebody unban Terez, so we can have some continued fun here ;-)

[MTS]

I don't think evolution necessarily precludes the existence of a higher ordinance. Considering the remarkable biocomplexity of even the simplest organisms, it requires a great leap of faith to pin all that down to a fortuitous combination of physics and chemistry, that is in itself able to orchestrate massive and continuous change across millions of years. The greatest trouble I have with design theory is reconciling it with a Judeo-Christian God, not a creator in general.