| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"The Last Liberal" |
| Date: |
10 Dec 2004 08:32:18 PM |
| Object: |
All Tomorrow's Parties |
http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2004/11/24/opinion/all_tomorrows_parties/atp.txt
By Joshua Ellis
I happened to be in the middle of reading evolutionary biologist
Richard Dawkins' excellent book of essays A Devil's Chaplain this
week, when I came across a piece in the Boston Globe detailing recent
attempts to remove the theory of Darwinian evolution from textbooks
all over America.
"In 2002, [Cobb County, Md.] school board members voted for the label
after a petition drive by Marjorie Rogers, a lawyer and devout
Christian, who said in trial testimony that she was motivated simply
by reading her children's textbook: 'It presented it just blatantly.
Evolution is a fact. It did happen. I was outraged.'"
Currently, I'm thinking the best course of action would be to remove
science entirely from public school curriculum, because it doesn't
seem that Americans want their children to learn how science works.
Bits of trivia about prisms and how snowflakes form is all very good
and well - isn't it nice how smart my Junior is? - but actually
understanding scientific method, or accepting that there might be such
a thing as objective truth regardless of whatever medieval notions one
might personally ascribe to ... Lord, no, we can't have that.
Americans seem to believe that the word "theory" is a synonym for
"some ***** I made up that might be true or not." This is
incorrect. A better word for that might be "religion." For those of
you who snoozed out during science class - and I'm guessing there's a
lot of you, based on the Globe article - let's go through this yet
again.
A scientist observes some natural process, be it the tendency of
female monkeys to seek out partners with Day-Glo genitalia or the
unaccounted-for behavior of photons in some arcane set of
circumstances. He or she makes a hypothesis based on this observation
- I think that phenomenon X happens for reason Y. The scientist then
experiments - if my hypothesis is correct, then X will happen when I
do this other thing involving expensive equipment.
If such is the case, the scientist is well on his or her way to having
a workable theory. Unlike religious doctrine or, say, postmodernist
literary study, science is extremely rigorous in its process of
verifying its results. Einstein didn't just pop out of the shower one
day and say: "Ja, I haff it, all matter is merely energy condensed!"
and promptly win the Nobel Prize for Best Haircut Ever. His hypothesis
was based on observation. Experimentation confirmed his hypothesis.
Nobody has ever come forth with anything contradicting it. Therefore,
it is a widely accepted theory.
Evolution, on the other hand, is not a theory. It's a fact, one that
can be observed if you bother to look in the right places (like fossil
records instead of religious texts). Charles Darwin came up with a
theory of how evolution works, one that most educated people agree
with. But even if they didn't, even if Darwin were totally off-base,
it wouldn't discount evolution itself, and neither does the average
person's inability to see evolution in action. Just because a child
believes the moon is made of green cheese doesn't mean that the moon
doesn't exist. Nor is gravity imaginary because you cannot see it.
Most of the people who argue against any given scientific theory have
merely skimmed a magazine article or two on it, or have only heard
arguments against it. Very seldom do they bother to actually read a
book on the subject, or take a look at scientific findings.
But since most people see nothing wrong with holding deep convictions
on subjects they know nothing about, they often go out and start
campaigning to have the theory - whether it be Darwinian evolution or
the big-bang theory - removed from textbooks, on the grounds that they
themselves are either too stupid or too lazy to actually educate
themselves, so why should anybody else learn anything?
Hell, why stop with evolution? Why not take basic physics out of
textbooks as well? After all, basic physics tells us - completely
contrary to the Word of God - that it is demonstrably impossible to
fit two of every species of life on the planet inside a boat roughly
300 cubits (or 135 meters) long. We're not even getting into the
ludicrous notion of a flood that covers the entire planet. And maybe
we ought to ban meteorology and geology, too, in case they tell us
something we don't like.
In a just world, strangers on the street would point at these people
and mock their stupidity. In this one, however, these are precisely
the idiots that politicians cater to in stump speeches.
If you want to believe things that aren't true, fine. But please leave
the rest of us (who are dealing strictly with what we like to
affectionately refer to as "reality") alone, OK? Don't make American
schoolchildren any more ignorant than they already are, just because
you can't wrap your head around any scientific advances made since the
French Revolution.
Future generations will thank you for it. I promise.
JOSHUA ELLIS IS A WRITER, ROCK STAR AND WEB GURU. YOU CAN SAVE YOUR
SOUL AT WWW.COLUMN.ZENARCHERY.COM, THE WEBSITE FOR HIS WEEKLY COLUMN
ALL TOMORROW'S PARTIES.
---
http://lastliberal.org
"How, then, can the feds justify favoring sons of Hispanics over sons of
white Americans who fought in World War II or Vietnam?" -- Pat Buchanan,
discussing affirmative action (01/23/95)
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: All Tomorrow's Parties |
11 Dec 2004 05:30:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:32:18 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (The Last Liberal)
pontificated:
Evolution, on the other hand, is not a theory.
Microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution is a theory much like gravity.
It's a fact, one that
can be observed if you bother to look in the right places (like fossil
records instead of religious texts).
All you know by looking at a fossil, is that something
died. There is no such thing as a clear and gradual
progression of fossils, from one kind to another. It
doesn't exist and this person is out to do nothing more
than bash the Bible.
Charles Darwin came up with a
theory of how evolution works,
No, he didn't. He plagiarized the work of others but I won't tell you who
they are.
one that most educated people agree with.
This is where I insult you.
In other words, even if evolutionists are wrong, that
doesn't mean they're wrong. <chuckle>
and neither does the average
person's inability to see evolution in action.
It is so obvious, how could someone not see it.
Just because a child
believes the moon is made of green cheese doesn't mean that the moon
doesn't exist. Nor is gravity imaginary because you cannot see it.
The effects of gravity are observed. I can drop a ball
and watch it hit the ground. Now show me one kind
turning into another except in the fossil record.
Most of the people who argue against any given scientific theory have
merely skimmed a magazine article or two on it, or have only heard
arguments against it. Very seldom do they bother to actually read a
book on the subject, or take a look at scientific findings.
I've done a lot of reading and studying about
evolution and disagree with it all.
But since most people see nothing wrong with holding deep convictions
on subjects they know nothing about, they often go out and start
campaigning to have the theory - whether it be Darwinian evolution or
the big-bang theory - removed from textbooks, on the grounds that they
themselves are either too stupid or too lazy to actually educate
themselves, so why should anybody else learn anything?
Ape became man and that's a fact It
has never been observed however and more likely ape and man have a common
ancestor but one did not evolve from the other.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: All Tomorrow's Parties |
11 Dec 2004 07:26:15 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:32:18 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (The Last Liberal)
pontificated:
Evolution, on the other hand, is not a theory.
Microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution is a theory much like gravity.
A theory is intellectual reasoning. It describes how facst are related to
one another and what that tells us about the reality of the world around us.
Everything interesting is a theory. Mere facts by and of themselves are
useless.
Some theories are good and useful. Quantum mechanics, evolution.
Some are are wrong and useless. Phlogoston theory of combustion,
creationism, astrology.
Bible creationism, based on bronze age mythology and two
contradictory tall tales of Genesis 1 and 2 is wrong.
Its is a failed theory.
Contradictory tall tales of Genesis 1 and 2 do not explain anything
about the world except many people are idiots.
--
Apes bad! Dust good!
Apes bad! Dust good!
21st Century American Christianity
in a nutshell.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: All Tomorrow's Parties |
11 Dec 2004 09:34:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:32:18 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (The Last Liberal)
pontificated:
Evolution, on the other hand, is not a theory.
Microevolution is a fact. The rest is a theory.
It's a fact, one that
can be observed if you bother to look in the right places (like fossil
records instead of religious texts).
All you know by looking at a fossil, is that something
died. There is no such thing as a clear and gradual
progression of fossils, from one kind to another. It
doesn't exist and this person is out to do nothing more
than bash the Bible.
Charles Darwin came up with a
theory of how evolution works,
No, he didn't. He plagiarized the work of others.
one that most educated people agree with.
This is where they insult you.
But even if they didn't, even if Darwin were totally off-base,
it wouldn't discount evolution itself,
In other words, even if evolutionists are wrong, that
doesn't mean they're wrong. <chuckle>
and neither does the average
person's inability to see evolution in action.
If it is so obvious, how could there be an inability to
see it?
Just because a child
believes the moon is made of green cheese doesn't mean that the moon
doesn't exist. Nor is gravity imaginary because you cannot see it.
The effects of gravity are observed. I can drop a ball
and watch it hit the ground. Now show me one kind
turning into another.
Most of the people who argue against any given scientific theory have
merely skimmed a magazine article or two on it, or have only heard
arguments against it. Very seldom do they bother to actually read a
book on the subject, or take a look at scientific findings.
I've done a lot of reading and studying about
evolution.
But since most people see nothing wrong with holding deep convictions
on subjects they know nothing about, they often go out and start
campaigning to have the theory - whether it be Darwinian evolution or
the big-bang theory - removed from textbooks, on the grounds that they
themselves are either too stupid or too lazy to actually educate
themselves, so why should anybody else learn anything?
Saying ape became man and that's a fact, is to lie. It
has never been observed. Flowers from flowers and bugs
from bugs does not prove dog from non-canidae.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: All Tomorrow's Parties |
11 Dec 2004 07:07:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:34:26 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:32:18 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (The Last Liberal)
pontificated:
Evolution, on the other hand, is not a theory.
Microevolution is a fact. The rest is a theory.
Evolution is change in allele frequencies in a breeding population
over time. It's a fact. Period.
Stop referring to speciation or abiogenesis as "evolution" - you know
better.
But even if they didn't, even if Darwin were totally off-base,
it wouldn't discount evolution itself,
In other words, even if evolutionists are wrong, that
doesn't mean they're wrong. <chuckle>
Actually, your comment just means that a) you don't understand English
or b) you're trying, and failing badly, to make a joke.
and neither does the average
person's inability to see evolution in action.
If it is so obvious, how could there be an inability to
see it?
How can there be an inability to "see" quantum mechanics? How can
there be an inability to see optical illusions (as illusions)?
How can there be your inability to see reality?
Just because a child
believes the moon is made of green cheese doesn't mean that the moon
doesn't exist. Nor is gravity imaginary because you cannot see it.
The effects of gravity are observed.
But what's observed isn't the result of some force called "gravity",
it's the result of the shape of space-time.
I can drop a ball and watch it hit the ground.
And that proves that there's a force called "gravity" how?
Now show me one kind turning into another.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Most of the people who argue against any given scientific theory have
merely skimmed a magazine article or two on it, or have only heard
arguments against it. Very seldom do they bother to actually read a
book on the subject, or take a look at scientific findings.
I've done a lot of reading and studying about evolution.
Reading and studying without understanding is worthless. Even more
worthless is "studying" something when you start the study convinced
that what you're studying is wrong and you're going to find out
exactly what's wrong with it.
Saying ape became man and that's a fact, is to lie.
It sure is since, by definition, man *IS* an ape. Did you think man
is a fish?
It has never been observed. Flowers from flowers and bugs
from bugs does not prove dog from non-canidae.
Dog is a species. Neither "flower" nor "bug" is. And you wasted all
that time studying without learning a thing. (BTW, flowers don't
reproduce flowers, any more than penises reproduce penises.)
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: All Tomorrow's Parties |
12 Dec 2004 08:04:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:07:26 -0500, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.net>
pontificated:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:34:26 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:32:18 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (The Last Liberal)
pontificated:
Evolution, on the other hand, is not a theory.
Microevolution is a fact. The rest is a theory.
Evolution is change in allele frequencies in a breeding population
over time. It's a fact. Period.
Stop referring to speciation or abiogenesis as "evolution" - you know
better.
Correct and here's my typical dodge, folks.
But even if they didn't, even if Darwin were totally off-base,
it wouldn't discount evolution itself,
In other words, even if evolutionists are wrong, that
doesn't mean they're wrong. <chuckle>
Actually, your comment just means that a) you don't understand English
or b) you're trying, and failing badly, to make a joke.
and neither does the average
person's inability to see evolution in action.
If it is so obvious, how could there be an inability to
see it?
How can there be an inability to "see" quantum mechanics? How can
there be an inability to see optical illusions (as illusions)?
How can there be your inability to see reality?
I am an idiot?
Just because a child
believes the moon is made of green cheese doesn't mean that the moon
doesn't exist. Nor is gravity imaginary because you cannot see it.
The effects of gravity are observed.
But what's observed isn't the result of some force called "gravity",
it's the result of the shape of space-time.
I can drop a ball and watch it hit the ground.
And that proves that there's a force called "gravity" how?
<chuckle>
Now show me one kind turning into another.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Sorry, nothing there demonstrates it to the exent I require and since I
require you turn a chicken into a dog on TV you will never prove it.
Most of the people who argue against any given scientific theory have
merely skimmed a magazine article or two on it, or have only heard
arguments against it. Very seldom do they bother to actually read a
book on the subject, or take a look at scientific findings.
I've done a lot of reading and studying about evolution.
Reading and studying without understanding is worthless. Even more
worthless is "studying" something when you start the study convinced
that what you're studying is wrong and you're going to find out
exactly what's wrong with it.
Now more insults: You are a jerk.
Saying ape became man and that's a fact, is to lie.
It sure is since, by definition, man *IS* an ape. Did you think man
is a fish?
And who called man an ape? Oh, that's right,
evolutionists.
Who called Genesis the word of God: oh the Bible <Chuckle>
It has never been observed. Flowers from flowers and bugs
from bugs does not prove dog from non-canidae.
Dog is a species. Neither "flower" nor "bug" is. And you wasted all
that time studying without learning a thing. (BTW, flowers don't
reproduce flowers, any more than penises reproduce penises.)
I.e., they can't prove it folks nor can I prove Genesis.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: All Tomorrow's Parties |
13 Dec 2004 07:11:40 PM |
|
|
On 13 Dec 2004 02:04:42 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
Who called Genesis the word of God: oh the Bible <Chuckle>
Or, more properly phrased:
Who called the bible the word of God: oh, the bible.
More evidence of Dave's transparent attempt to pull 50% wool over
someone's eyes.
It has never been observed. Flowers from flowers and bugs
from bugs does not prove dog from non-canidae.
Dog is a species. Neither "flower" nor "bug" is. And you wasted all
that time studying without learning a thing. (BTW, flowers don't
reproduce flowers, any more than penises reproduce penises.)
I.e., they can't prove it
No, we can't prove things we never claimed. You seem to have such a
problem with science that the best you can do is straw men. Science
never claimed that flowers or bugs changed into non-flowers or
non-bugs - only you claim that science makes the claim.
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: All Tomorrow's Parties |
12 Dec 2004 11:41:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:07:26 -0500, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.net>
pontificated:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:34:26 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:32:18 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (The Last Liberal)
pontificated:
Evolution, on the other hand, is not a theory.
Microevolution is a fact. The rest is a theory.
Evolution is change in allele frequencies in a breeding population
over time. It's a fact. Period.
Stop referring to speciation or abiogenesis as "evolution" - you know
better.
Here's the typical dodge, folks.
But even if they didn't, even if Darwin were totally off-base,
it wouldn't discount evolution itself,
In other words, even if evolutionists are wrong, that
doesn't mean they're wrong. <chuckle>
Actually, your comment just means that a) you don't understand English
or b) you're trying, and failing badly, to make a joke.
and neither does the average
person's inability to see evolution in action.
If it is so obvious, how could there be an inability to
see it?
How can there be an inability to "see" quantum mechanics? How can
there be an inability to see optical illusions (as illusions)?
How can there be your inability to see reality?
More dodge ball, folks.
Just because a child
believes the moon is made of green cheese doesn't mean that the moon
doesn't exist. Nor is gravity imaginary because you cannot see it.
The effects of gravity are observed.
But what's observed isn't the result of some force called "gravity",
it's the result of the shape of space-time.
I can drop a ball and watch it hit the ground.
And that proves that there's a force called "gravity" how?
<chuckle>
Now show me one kind turning into another.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Sorry, nothing there demonstrates it.
Most of the people who argue against any given scientific theory have
merely skimmed a magazine article or two on it, or have only heard
arguments against it. Very seldom do they bother to actually read a
book on the subject, or take a look at scientific findings.
I've done a lot of reading and studying about evolution.
Reading and studying without understanding is worthless. Even more
worthless is "studying" something when you start the study convinced
that what you're studying is wrong and you're going to find out
exactly what's wrong with it.
Now more insults.
Saying ape became man and that's a fact, is to lie.
It sure is since, by definition, man *IS* an ape. Did you think man
is a fish?
And who called man an ape? Oh, that's right,
evolutionists. <chuckle>
It has never been observed. Flowers from flowers and bugs
from bugs does not prove dog from non-canidae.
Dog is a species. Neither "flower" nor "bug" is. And you wasted all
that time studying without learning a thing. (BTW, flowers don't
reproduce flowers, any more than penises reproduce penises.)
I.e., they can't prove it folks.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: All Tomorrow's Parties |
11 Dec 2004 10:47:40 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:32:18 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (The Last Liberal)
pontificated:
Evolution, on the other hand, is not a theory.
Microevolution is a fact. The rest is a theory.
Macro-evolution is fact.
Any other claim is religous ideology and brutally erroneus.
Organized ignorance. Knuckle walking intellectual
inadequecy.
Myths are not science.
--
Apes bad! Dust good!
Apes bad! Dust good!
21st Century American Christianity
in a nutshell.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
All Tomorrow's Parties
Re: Will the REAL stakeholders and interested parties please stand up?
Re: Describing the parties in a de facto marriage.
Love Bumps And Love Patches Of The Mouth, Lips, Cheeks, Breasts, Back, Bumbies, Legs, Groins, And Other Places In Women And Men, Bumby Fucking Men And Women And Throat Toggling (Stuffing Dicks Down Throats) Men And Women For Love Parties, Ascension a
HI Call Center Lays Off 172. NeoCons Celebrate With Caviar Parties
Re: Are You A Republican? Ever Consider Changing Parties?
599th GI Killed by Bush's Big Lie. Where Are All You ***** Chickenhawks Now?
All these things shall be dissolved
| "RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS"
And the lord will rain down with all his hate!
Re: Message for all the judgment fired at New Orleans
why hasn't the loving, caring all-powerful, all-knowing god saved them?
the all-important free will
Re: TO ALL IN AUSTRALIA NOW
22 Congressmen Hate Christmas (All Democrats)
|
|
|
