Where, or where, could I apply for a job which entails writing that chapter?
- Alternative theories to Evolution #1: Life on Earth began when Znod the Space Porcupine sneezed out an early civilization 123,000 years ago onto a lifeless Earth *
-lv
I’m gettin’ dizzy, here. Three 9/11’s. Three of 'em. This Rashak Mani must be a genius, and a patriot, too! Give him all the money he wants.
Probably because a few thousand years ago, a Middle-Eastern tribesman wrote that a sky-dwelling deity created the Earth (defined as the plot of land around the Middle East) and everything on it (all of the animals and tribes native to his region, with the possible exeption of those tribes he disliked, who were created by a false deity).
There is no good evidence against the idea of evolution. We don’t find fossilized human skulls alongside trilobites and we don’t find fossils of modern horse skeletons inside fossils of T. rex skeletons. What’s more, we have observed it happening with bacteria exposed to antibiotics: The distribution of genes in a bacteria population exposed to antibiotics will change drastically enough to render the drug ineffective over time.
Of the posters in this particular thread who called doubters in evolution morons and dumbasses, how many of you personally are evolutionary biologists?
In this thread? None, so far as I know. That does not mean they are incorrect.
I have recently graduated with a Biology degree. Probably 80% of my course modules involved teaching us evolutionary theory to a greater or lesser extent; Lots of population biology, and much genetics.
I don’t know if this qualifies me as an evolutionary biologist as such, since I’m not involved in study in the area. However, I’m a biologist and I’ve learnt a lot about evolution, and have greatly increased my understanding of its mechanisms and processes. Doubters in evolution are morons and dumbasses.
If they aren’t, I am not sure where it is they get the right to abuse folks who disgree with them then, that’s all I am saying.
Rebekkah, if you really are curious, send me an email and I’d be glad to send you some resources on other points of view and some of the things that convinced me otherwise.
This is turning into a hijack, and that’s my fault. I should have just held my tongue since what I wanted to say was off topic. I’ll let it go. I was just surpised at the extreme nature of some of the posts here on an issue i don’t think is as cut and dried as people think. The very fact that there has been intense discussion on this topic here in the past means that not everyone is in agreement.
Before I go though, because this was over the top…
A) While I am a Christian and do believe in God, I never mentioned God in this thread, nor did I say any alternatives taught in school had to be based on creationism. I merely said that evolution should not be taught as the only correct answer to how life came to be. I don’t think creationism belongs in public school. I just don’t think evolution does either.
B) I DO believe in science and chemistry. To say that evolution is as completely provable as observable chemical reactions is crazy. Even if you think I am completely wrong, surely you can’t think that something as complex as the origin of life is as simple and provable as bases and acids. You are just trying to belittle me.
As promised I am done. Sorry for the hijack Skopo.
Psssssst. You forgot “ignorant.”
I’m not an evolutionary biologist. I also don’t call people “morons” or “dumbasses” because it goes against my Christian faith to do so. I do accept evolution as the most likely theory for how things came to be the way they are, just as I assume the gentleman who’ll be turning up on my doorstep shortly will be arriving by car rather than by bus. While both are possible, one is far more likely given what I know of him and the universe.
As for threads on evolution, there’s one toward the top of Great Debates right now. I should know – I just posted in it. LastCall, please, read the thread and the ones linked to in it and in this thread and reconsider? Among other things, to me the intricate process of evolution is far more satisfying than God simply saying “Poof! There it is!”
And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve just realized I’ve participated in a hijack! :eek: Serves you right. I mean, what else can you expect from a liberal like me? :rolleyes:
CJ
Even besides the 9/11 reference, she voices that opinion held by so many conservatives that “we’re” taking “our country” back from “them liberals.” The premise is that only conservatives are really Americans and should be allowed to participate in the process. Conservatives never tire of ussing and themming.
Douglas Adams contacted me in a seance. He wants his joke back.
Critics from all sides of the political spectrum have criticized the tax system as unfair. Do you agree, and if so how would you change it?
http://elections.stltoday.com/voter/candidatebio.asp?read=yes&RaceID=13498&CandidateID=20862
A poll tax?? Haven’t we been there done that hated it?
Because the facts are four-square behind them. All the available evidence supports evolution. None of it contradicts evolution. There is no dissent on this issue within the scientific community. As much as any issue in science can ever be settled, evolution is settled. The only legitimate debate left is over the precise mechanism through which evolution occurs. The only dissenting voices come from charlatans and demogouges, and those who have been gulled by their lies and misleading rhetoric.
Go ahead and send that to me, too. E-mail’s in my profile. I’d love to see what you got.
Everyone with actual training in the field would disagree with you.
So? There’s been intense discussion on the topic of wether or not NASA faked the Apollo moon landing. There’s been intense discussion on wether blacks are genetically inferior to whites. There’s been intense discussion on wether circumscion is morally equivalent to female genital mutilation. The fact that a viewpoint has defenders does not mean that a viewpoint is defensible.
What should be taught in schools, then?
And yet, evolution has been observed in labratory conditions.
Who said anything about the origins of life? I thought we were talking about evolution.
Heh.
Bush is subliminally effecting people. 
This looks similar to a third grader’s book report.
“This book is about a mouse with a motorcycle. He lives in a hotel because it is the place he was born. A boy takes him to school. The mouse does not like being at school. I liked this book, and I think everyone should read it.”
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041216/ids_photos_ts/r892719563.jpg
Just in case no one has any idea what the hell I’m talking about.
Bah, looks like I’m being effected too. :rolleyes:
I don’t know whether it was apathy or ignorance which led you to distort what Mr. Bond said, but I would like to put some of that in context. You can read a relatively fair analysis of similar comments he has made here.
First, this quote was taken from a speech Bond gave at an event for a group called Take Back America. You can find a longer version of his comments here. Your comments are way off-base. Let’s go point by point.
"They (from the ever popular us vs. them) preach racial neutrality and they practice racial division."
If you really want examples of how the Bush administration has done that then I will provide some.
"They celebrate Dr. King and they misuse his message. Their idea of reparations is to give war criminal Jefferson Davis a pardon (not to mention the fact the idea itself is a moronic one)."
I assume you are saying reparations is a moronic idea. You are entitled to your opinion, but to call the idea itself moronic is narrow-minded and ignorant. I agree that direct payouts is infeasible, but the reparations movement isn’t entirely based on just that solution, nor is it only based on slavery reparations. The US gov’t supported institutional racism, which occured long after slavery, for which amends need to be made. Not to mention the fact that this country has given reparations countless times throughout its history. It wasn’t a “moronic idea” in every instance.
"Their idea of a pristine environment is a parking lot before the lines are painted in (Paging: Chrissie Hynde)."
This has nothing to do with his point. You seem to have this idea that pointing to someone else who behaves badly should be mitigate another’s. Additionally, you haven’t refuted his assertion that the Bush administration is soft on environmental issues.
"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the confederate swastika flying side by side (I had no idea 12 million people were exterminated en masse while the stars and bars flew over southern statehouses)."
First, he is obviously using swastika symbolically. Confederate ideals and Nazism are similar in many ways. The point, which is germane to this discussion, is that people is both groups lack human decency. Both the swastika, and the confederate flag are evil symbols which represent the worst of humanity and the errors of racial superiority to many people. Thus, those people use metaphor to highlight the fact that they are analogous.
"Their idea of compassion is to ask the guest at the millionaire’s banquet if they want an extra helping or a second dessert. (So this is just a rant aimed at carb counting millionaires?)"
Yes, his comments lacked structure at times, but it is clearly a laundry list of things the Bush adminitration does that piss him off. If you bothered to read the entire speech, you would see that he presents facts and instances to bolster his thesis. If you wanted to refute his claim, you could easily point out the instances of compassion the Bush administration has shown.
"They’ve tried to patch the leaky economy and every other domestic problem with duct tape and plastic sheets. (Tom Ridge was in the Homeland Security, not Treasury)."
Again, you have a problem understanding metaphor and symbolism. I really don’t even know how to go about commenting on commentary so foolish. It’s not stupid just cause you don’t get it.
"They’ve written a new constitution for Iraq and ignored the Constitution here at home. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban-wing of American politics. (Call the dog pound! There are millions of Islamic lunatics foaming at the mouth)"
He meant that Bush keeps surrounding people that are on the fringe. This was directed mostly toward John Ashcroft. His brand of religion is just as narrow-minded and caustic as the Taliban’s. Many people describe his as a religion fanatic. You may disagree, but his opinion is not uncommon. Do you disagree with the notion that many of Bush’s most ardent supporters are religious zealots? People who think homosexuality is an abomination to God, and want to maintain the state of Israel in preparation for Christ’s return. I see them on TV regularly and can attest to the fact that they represent a position within Christianity analogous to the position the Taliban had within Islam. I assume you disagree.
This point was also directed at people like Condoleeza Rice. Bond, feels Bush keeps people like Condoleeza around cause she his black. He feels she is a token who has been manipulated to further Bush’s agenda, and is not representative of the majority of black people in this country.
He could have said explicitly, but then someone might accuse him of making political statements and use that as an excuse to investigate the NAACP. But nobody would be that vindictive, right?
Hey, I liked that book! What was it called again?