"The illiteracy level of our children are appalling" -- President Bush speech transcript

[quade 4]

Quote

One thing that is a fact however, there is a far older book that details Creation, while we infact have no book as old as this detailing evolution.

Old doesn't equal correct.

And in fact, we do have books, much, much older than the Bible that detail their versions of creation myths. By your logic are we then to assume that they are more correct than the Bible?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,545]

Quote

The fact remains that there is noone around today that was there when it al started and thus we have no documentation of the events leading up to evolution, nor do we have anyone that was around a few thousand years ago to document Creation. One thing that is a fact however, there is a far older book that details Creation, while we infact have no book as old as this detailing evolution.

do do
do do do do
do do (this is supposed to look like the Twilight Zone music... )


you are now entering the twilight zone.
The Bible was written a few years after the events you indicate it documents. There were arguments when it was joined into a single document about which pieces belonged and which didn't. And no, the gentlement who translated the King James version from the Greek and Latin translations they used as their basis (they couldn't read the original Aramaic etc.) were not divinely inspired in the inaccuracies.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

Hmm, I was wondering who would bite on this, what makes you assume it was the bible I was talking about?

There ARE writings, not in book form as we now accept it to be, but gathered writings all the same, and they DO describe Creation. Mesopotamian Style.

[URL http://www.recoveredscience.com/const128mesopotamianinfluences.htm]Here ya go[/url]

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Just can't admit you didn't have a logical leg to stand on eh?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Did you read the articles?

I ran across this a few weeks ago when a friend of mine asked what kind of proof I had that creation isn't the answer.

What I argue about on this subject is that BOTH theorys should be taught, not just one. In there lies a dillema, again I ask, who would teach this, it is obviously a well regaurded theory, just not by you. Also it would torch the No God at school!" movement that is so popular with the liberal community these days. Just because you may think that Evolution is the way it all started, doesn't make it true, and vice versa, so teach both scenarios, teach both equally. Then, , we can let the people make their own decision, as much as you would hate it, it would be fair.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

Then, , we can let the people make their own decision, as much as you would hate it, it would be fair.

That would be the equivalent of teaching that 1+1=2 as well as 1+1=3 and then letting the student decide.

I'm sorry, but only one is a fact and only one should be taught in publicly funded schools.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelel01 1]

Evolution is scientific THEORY, not fact.

Kelly

[quade 4]

Quote

Evolution is scientific THEORY, not fact.

No. Actually, evolution is a fact. You can see it happen today. You can see the results of evolution in the past.

It's called a theory for scientific symantic purposes, but it really did happen.

To deny it is to say that a tree falling in the forest doesn't make a sound just because there was no one there to witness it.

While that may be an argument for philosophers, it's a scientific fact that it does.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Then, , we can let the people make their own decision, as much as you would hate it, it would be fair.

That would be the equivalent of teaching that 1+1=2 as well as 1+1=3 and then letting the student decide.

I'm sorry, but only one is a fact and only one should be taught in publicly funded schools.

Which one?

The one that is unsubstantiated, or the one that is not supported by fact?

another way-

the one that is only a theory or the one that it takes faith to believe?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Evolution is scientific THEORY, not fact.

Kelly

Define "fact" before making such a silly statement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelel01 1]

Quote

No. Actually, evolution is a fact. You can see it happen today. You can see the results of evolution in the past.

Evolution with regards to creation is NOT FACT. It is theory!

Kelly

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Then, , we can let the people make their own decision, as much as you would hate it, it would be fair.

That would be the equivalent of teaching that 1+1=2 as well as 1+1=3 and then letting the student decide.

I'm sorry, but only one is a fact and only one should be taught in publicly funded schools.

Which one?

The one that is unsubstantiated, or the one that is not supported by fact?

another way-

the one that is only a theory or the one that it takes faith to believe?

What an absurd statement.

Quantum electrodynamics is also only a theory. It has been verified accurate to the 13th significant figure in experiments. We use it to design lasers and computer chips and particle accelerators. You use products based on quantum electrodynamics every day of your life. The computer you use to read this is based on quantum electrodynamics.

It's ONLY a theory, however.

"Only a theory" is just the stupidest criticism possible in science.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

No. Actually, evolution is a fact. You can see it happen today. You can see the results of evolution in the past.

Evolution with regards to creation is NOT FACT. It is theory!

Kelly

Creationism isn't even theory in the accepted sense of the word. It is pure faith.

And you still haven't defined "fact".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[vonSanta 0]

Quote

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040123-2.html

Hi Vinny!!!!

Hm, not to slam Bush or anything, but on that transcript he doesn't come off as either eloquent or particularly bright. Sure, it is hard to talk publicly, but he ought to be used to it now. Quite short, Hemmingway-esque sentences, often repeating what he's just said. Use of a very limited vocabulary.

Am not saying that the use of language necessarily reflects intelligence. In generally does, but there are exceptions. Bush, I think, is probably above average intelligence wise, but as world political leaders go, he's far from the top. Then again, it's the use of the available intelligence that matters, not the amount.

And man, am I tired of "polite laughter". Anyone 'normal' make some of the lame jokes in there and there'd be only an embarrasing silence. silence. But that ain't Bush's fault - always that way when someone 'important' speaks. The humorous content of a comment, it seems, is directly proportional to how important the person making it is.

Still, I'm a bit disappointed with the way he uses the language. For some reason I expect people in such high positions to at least be as eloquent as say your average post grad student.

About the content - internal US politics isn't my forté, so I'll refrain from commenting that. I'm just a bit struck by how sorta low quality of his oratory (am not talking argumentative) performance.

For all the Bush supporters: you may be right - he may be a very bright, great President with a moral compass - am not arguing that. Just a wee comment coming from a slight disappointment.

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[BikerBabe 0]

Oh, goody. One of my favorite debates...though I'm not sure how we got here from Bush's apparent inability to correctly use the English language.

I think we're getting confused over semantics here.

A scientific law, such as Newton's second, has been proven to occur invariably whenever certain conditions are met.

Not the same thing as "fact" unless you define it to be so.

A scientific theory, on the other hand, is used to explain phenomena but it MUST be falsifiable...meaning it could be proven to be untrue at some point based on new evidence.

Technically speaking, natural selection as a means of evolution of species is a scientific theory.

Note that it is still scientific, meaning it could be disproven using the scientific method.

Tell me, can creation be disproven using the scientific method? Try it. It never can be, since any counterevidence can be explained by "God wanted it that way." Thus "Creation science" is an oxymoron.

The teaching of creation does not belong in a science classroom. It may belong in a religion or theology classroom, but not science.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Sheenster303 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No. Actually, evolution is a fact. You can see it happen today. You can see the results of evolution in the past.

Evolution with regards to creation is NOT FACT. It is theory!

Kelly

Creationism isn't even theory in the accepted sense of the word. It is pure faith.

And you still haven't defined "fact".

Can you explain how evolution is "fact"? I would like to hear how you think it's fact. So far, everything I've read on here has been theory.

Here's a theory for you....perhaps God created evolution. It had to come from somewhere. What do you think about that one?

I'm so funny I crack my head open!

P.M.S. #102

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Then, , we can let the people make their own decision, as much as you would hate it, it would be fair.

That would be the equivalent of teaching that 1+1=2 as well as 1+1=3 and then letting the student decide.

I'm sorry, but only one is a fact and only one should be taught in publicly funded schools.

Take this from an agnostic - if we were not teaching things that are not factual, we would not have literature, art, or any of the other subjects taught in public school.

Turtlespeed is correct. Nobody has been able to duplicate the creation of life through science. The Miller-Urey experiment was not duplicated.

What does science consist of? Well, I've been taught it means "prove me wrong." Certain theories or axioms and posited, and then tested via peer review.

There is a shitload of evidence to suggest that evolution is real. Turns out, I believe it. But I believe that Creationism should also be discussed in an objective manner. The fact is that there are people who believe it.

Perhaps this concept should be taught in a civics class or a history class. Would you argue with that?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

There is a shitload of evidence to suggest that evolution is real. Turns out, I believe it. But I believe that Creationism should also be discussed in an objective manner. The fact is that there are people who believe it.

I agree with Lawrocket and Einstein.

[kelel01 1]

Quote

Tell me, can creation be disproven using the scientific method? Try it. It never can be, since any counterevidence can be explained by "God wanted it that way." Thus "Creation science" is an oxymoron.

The teaching of creation does not belong in a science classroom. It may belong in a religion or theology classroom, but not science.

Now there's a thought I can stand behind! I don't think Creationism should be taught in science class, just for the record.

But I think if you come back to the planet in 2000 years, evolution may have been disproven by then. The problem is that scientists are often narrow-minded and believe that what they know now is the end all, be all of whatever they happen to be working on. E.g. "Um, yeah, the Earth is flat . . ."

Kelly

[pds 0]

thread creep is a beautiful thing.

Quote

One thing that is a fact however, there is a far older book that details Creation, while we infact have no book as old as this detailing evolution.

one word. DINOSAURS.

namaste, motherfucker.

[benny 0]

Quote

There is a shitload of evidence to suggest that evolution is real. Turns out, I believe it. But I believe that Creationism should also be discussed in an objective manner. The fact is that there are people who believe it.

Perhaps this concept should be taught in a civics class or a history class. Would you argue with that?

History class works "There are groups of people who believe a divine being created the Earth and all life there on (including man) in 7 days. There is however no evidence of a divine being and tons of evidence that the earth has been around a lot longer than creationists believe" Lesson done.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[benny 0]

Evolution definitely exists. The sad fact is that the creationists have turned this into such an emotional issue ("They say we came from monkeys, I didn't come from no monkey damnit!") that the facts get over-looked. Things change, through natural process (see reproduction) and those changes which make it more likely that one will survive/have lots of randy sex will persist in future populations.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[vonSanta 0]

Quote

Here's a theory for you....perhaps God created evolution. It had to come from somewhere. What do you think about that one?

I might be able to help you out.

But first I must say that what created or started evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the theory of evolution. It could be Barney The Dog who somehow did it - but what we are examining is an explanation for an observation.

Secondly, a scientific theory differs very much from what the general population considers a theory. Yours is an example of the latter. it's a misnomer, really, because you're making an assertion, which has yet to be supported in any way or form. A scientific theory on the other hand talks about

a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena.

It's falsifiable - it *has* to be, since science in general isn't like mathematics. We go by what the evidence we have says - and if new come in that contradict the current stuff, we have a mechanism for correcting our error. The scientific world is a beautiful thing to watch - it is self correcting, although sometimes it does so grudgingly.

I should start by saying that evolution is both a fact *and* a theory. There are great misconceptions about evolution and the theory of evolution.

To put it in rather generic terms, evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. See this link for a down-to-earth discussion about that. I'll quote a bit:

Quote

There are genes for making human eyes, but not everyone’s eye genes are exactly identical. There are different variations (alleles, or genotypes) of eye genes. One allele makes brown eyes. Another allele makes blue eyes. Another allele makes green eyes. Alleles are normal variations in genes.

In a randomly selected human population, a certain percentage of people will have brown eyes. Some will have blue eyes. Others will have green eyes, etc. The colors of their eyes are visible indications of what eye-gene alleles they have. So, by counting the number of people with each eye color, one could determine the frequency of each allele in the gene pool.

It's not very hard at all to prove this takes place - we call it evolution, and it is a fact.

Now the theory of evolution is far more complex - but it is as well supported as many other scientific theories. And it's just that - a scientific theory. Not an assertion or a conspiracy theory. That word has been so misused that people are getting the wrong idea when it's used. Languages are dynamic so who knows, maybe soon the word theory will equate "wild assed guess . Now the theory of evolution doesn't prove it is absolutely right - that's almost impossible to do aside from human constructs where we set the parameters - but it's very well supported.

I could go on about this, but talkorigins does a much better job.

If you think the theory of evolution is wrong in some particular area, feel free to bring it up. I'll do my best to answer it.

But, you gotta admit, having empirical data, reproducable, falsifiable experiments is a hell of a lot better than simply saying "goddidit" as far as proof and support goes.

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

No. Actually, evolution is a fact. You can see it happen today. You can see the results of evolution in the past.

Evolution with regards to creation is NOT FACT. It is theory!

Kelly

Creationism isn't even theory in the accepted sense of the word. It is pure faith.

And you still haven't defined "fact".

Can you explain how evolution is "fact"? I would like to hear how you think it's fact. So far, everything I've read on here has been theory.

Here's a theory for you....perhaps God created evolution. It had to come from somewhere. What do you think about that one?

1. Where exactly did I write that evolution is a fact?

2. Your theory isn't a theory in the sense accepted by science. It is an article of faith, and not testable.

Now, if you want to use words in a different way than science does, OK (the English language is very flexible), but don't use those words that way in a scientific context.

And I still haven't heard an explanation of what comprises scientific "fact".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Turtlespeed is correct. Nobody has been able to duplicate the creation of life through science. The Miller-Urey experiment was not duplicated.

Depends on how you define life.

Synthetic viruses have been created in two separate labs now (see news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm for the first. Is a virus alive? Depends how you define life, but it can certainly reproduce itself.

Are you willing to bet that within 10 years an undisputably living agent will not be synthesized?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.