billvon 2,991 #151 August 10, 2005 >temperature vs pirates. This obvious left-wing attempt to scare the public into believing in their agenda is pitiful. Nowhere in that graph does it point out that global warming is completely natural, and is caused by the parrots that perch on the shoulders of said pirates rather than the pirates themselves. Are the lefties going to claim that parrots are man-made? Fortunately, the public is far too smart to buy into this global-warming-without-parrots myth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #152 August 10, 2005 QuoteFortunately, the public is far too smart to buy into this global-warming-without-parrots myth. I disagree with you a bunch but every once in a while, you make a good funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #153 August 10, 2005 Wow I'd forgotten all about that site. I'll have to find the other one that has the science book disclaimer labels...ah http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/ TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everon 0 #154 August 10, 2005 OMD (Darwin) I just saw the light! The FSM theory is right on!! I just read today that the board in Kansas now voted to downplay evolution. I wonder just how many school board members would actually consider FSMism. Judging by their recent actions, I'm positive this is a non-zero positive integer! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #155 August 17, 2005 This just in from the Onion: http://www.onion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #156 August 17, 2005 TeHe - you've got to love The Onion (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #158 November 9, 2005 QuoteAnd what we should teach in science classes should be scientifically valid. Sorry to revive a dead discussion, but your quote caught my eye. The problem I see with "scientifically valid" arguments or theories is that after a few years or decades or centuries there will come someone else to prove the earlier guy wrong. I am not a Bible advocate, but science has proven itself wrong thousands of times. Who or what should we believe? The other confusing concept is evolution itself. In order for things to evolve there had to be at least one atom or molecule... the first atom or molecule ever, which later evolved into everything we know now. Who or what created such first atom or molecule?... herein lies the problem with religions such as Buddhism, which are based on cause and effect: there is no original cause, only faith. That's why other religions such as Catholicism rely on faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #159 November 9, 2005 TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #160 November 9, 2005 ... are you laughing at my avatar? Yours is not that sexy either, mister! At least I have the "sexy under-evolutionized hair" going on ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skytripper 0 #161 November 9, 2005 Evolution in the bible, says Vatican http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html Have at it...Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving! ~ Patrick Dennis' Auntie Mame Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #162 November 9, 2005 >The problem I see with "scientifically valid" arguments or theories is that >after a few years or decades or centuries there will come someone else to >prove the earlier guy wrong. Generally, valid scientific theories are modified rather than proved wrong. The example creationists like to use is Newtonian mechanics, which was supplanted by the theory of relativity. Yet Newtonian mechanics still does an excellent job of explaining most of the world we see; it's only where time-space is especially warped (like near the sun) that you can see any error at all. As time goes on we will learn more and more about evolution. We may discover, for example, that one of the molecular clocks biologists rely on to determine distances between the species runs faster or slower than we expected. But it is unlikely that all of paleontology, molecular biology, geology, developmental biology and comparative anatomy is wrong. To put it a different way - science has no unified theory of everything that includes how gravity works. But the smart money is still on using a parachute if you want to live through a skydive, and similarly, evolution will continue to happen whether people 'believe' it or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #163 November 9, 2005 nope. not the avatar. I like monkeys. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #164 November 9, 2005 GWB is living proof that intelligent design is a fraud. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #165 November 9, 2005 Quotenope. not the avatar. I like monkeys. Apes, bro. Apes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b1jercat 0 #166 November 9, 2005 QuoteGWB is living proof that intelligent design is a fraud. Amen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #167 November 9, 2005 ssshhh stop ruining my fun. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #168 November 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd what we should teach in science classes should be scientifically valid. Sorry to revive a dead discussion, but your quote caught my eye. The problem I see with "scientifically valid" arguments or theories is that after a few years or decades or centuries there will come someone else to prove the earlier guy wrong. I am not a Bible advocate, but science has proven itself wrong thousands of times. Who or what should we believe? The other confusing concept is evolution itself. In order for things to evolve there had to be at least one atom or molecule... the first atom or molecule ever, which later evolved into everything we know now. Who or what created such first atom or molecule?... Exactly !! why is there something instead of nothing , the moment you put that ? forward you would see evolutionists run for cover or change the subject .... herein lies the problem with religions such as Buddhism, which are based on cause and effect: there is no original cause, only faith. That's why other religions such as Catholicism rely on faith.If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #169 November 9, 2005 QuoteThe other confusing concept is evolution itself. In order for things to evolve there had to be at least one atom or molecule... the first atom or molecule ever, which later evolved into everything we know now. Who or what created such first atom or molecule?... Exactly !! why is there something instead of nothing , the moment you put that ? forward you would see evolutionists run for cover or change the subject .... I beg your pardon, but are you mishmashing evolution and physics? What you're saying seems as ridiculous to me as trying to debunk the English language by asking questions about algebra. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #170 November 9, 2005 QuoteQuote I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not but I hope you realize the very early fossils are aquatic. Since these animals lived IN WATER, at the bottom of the ocean, it's unlikely they would have even noticed a flood. Using logic I learned on SC I feel the need to argue this point. What are you talking about? I exist in the air but notice when it's windy!!! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 42 #171 November 9, 2005 Even the Vatican rejects Intelligent Design http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17161127%255E30417,00.html Edited to add: I like this article better http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_sc/vatican_science"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #172 November 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe other confusing concept is evolution itself. In order for things to evolve there had to be at least one atom or molecule... the first atom or molecule ever, which later evolved into everything we know now. Who or what created such first atom or molecule?... Exactly !! why is there something instead of nothing , the moment you put that ? forward you would see evolutionists run for cover or change the subject .... I beg your pardon, but are you mishmashing evolution and physics? What you're saying seems as ridiculous to me as trying to debunk the English language by asking questions about algebra. >> the moment you put that ? forward you would see evolutionists run for cover or change the subject ....reply] I was pretty honest when i said that.. well there it happened again.If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #173 November 9, 2005 Look! It's the Goodyear Blimp! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #174 November 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteYou will find the answer to many of these questions in a college level General Biology class. I have taken college level biology courses as well as geology, and they teach everything you guys are arguing, but I've never seen or been taught in these classes anything that could answer even one of these questions. However, I have researched the other arguments as well, and I just can't see how evolution can continue to be taught as a legitimate theory or a fact as almost any school or college teaches it. But don't mind me, i'm just a religious nut with no common sense even though nothing I've said had anything to with God, just the faults with the current system. At least I gave the thought of evolution a chance, since that's all i've been taught my whole life, but fortunately I was able to realize what a shitty theory it was. "At least I gave the thought of evolution a chance" >> -If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #175 November 9, 2005 Wow, who pulled this thread out of the graveyard. Maybe someone asked that already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
