Bah, Evolution smellovution. THAT's not the reason.
Ask a bunch of eight-graders(or high schoolers) a few questions:
1. In your home/apt, were does the hot water come from when you open a faucet?(How is it hot?) 2. In your home/apt,Where does the cold water come from when you open the faucet? 3. When you flush the toilet, where does it go? 4. How does electriciy get into your house/apt?
5.What happens when you get a sunburn? 6. Draw the sun, earth, and moon (which is largest, medium, smallest?) 7. Explain the life cycle of a butterfly. 8. What are flowers for?(What is at least one purpose?) 9. explain why it rains. 10. Why is the sky blue? 12. Are dolphins fish? 11. How do dolphins live/swim in the ocean if they have lungs? 12. Why does the moon have different 'phases"?
Just a few. If you heard some of the replies I have gotten when I asked those questions... Ugh!
[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 10-11-2010).]
IP: Logged
06:47 AM
hookdonspeed Member
Posts: 7980 From: baltimore, md Registered: May 2008
The powers that be still need modern day slaves. We still need people to cook our hamburgers and fries for us. Functional illiteracy helps us to achieve it.
IP: Logged
09:44 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25693 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Public acceptance of evolution of 34 countries. We are slightly higher than Turkey.
That's a pretty ridiculous claim to make.
I mean, that's really stretching the boundaries there. Are you assuming that creationism and evolution are the cornerstone of any kind of science known to man kind? That... the origins of animals is all that there is? Science is a very broad subject, we are surrounded by science...
The reason why we are behind in science, is because the government has stopped investing in science, and has instead decided it wants to create an epic race of dependant socialist zombies, bloating 60% the federal budget to support welfare.
In case you're wondering, I completely support evolution.
How many pancakes does it take to cover a dog house? 87.
The correct answer is 107. This is why we are behind in science; the average Fiero owner can't solve basic arithmetic problems. Great Dane houses are out of the norm and require more pancakes, of course
IP: Logged
10:17 AM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
Public acceptance of evolution of 34 countries. We are slightly higher than Turkey.
Source? While the conclusion aligns nicely with my own personal prejudices, the scientist in me sees huge gaps in the data. Dozens of developed countries are missing. Why? Was the omission deliberate? Scientific integrity demands that you present all your data, not just that which supports your conclusion.
IP: Logged
10:32 AM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
Source? While the conclusion aligns nicely with my own personal prejudices, the scientist in me sees huge gaps in the data. Dozens of developed countries are missing. Why? Was the omission deliberate? Scientific integrity demands that you present all your data, not just that which supports your conclusion.
Good observation. Unfortunately I don't have access to the article anymore:
I think the problem lies in the fact that for twenty years all of the countries listed have been teaching "flawed" GW science. Now we have to wipe everyone's memory card and start all over again. Hate it when that happens.
[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 10-11-2010).]
IP: Logged
11:52 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
I've never understood this "Science vs Relgion" thing. YES, there are a handful of lunatics who say evolution didn't not happen and that the Earth is 6000 years old, yada yada. But even Rush Limbaugh said, "Well of course evolution happens. Just look out your window."
The issue for all rational human beings is not whether or not Darwin is right, he is. The question is that if everything evolves from something, where did the first something come from?
THIS is where theology fills the gap between what we know and what we do not know. And there is nothing inherently contradictory between the theory that some supreme being created everything we know and the idea that the organization of the universe is a natural convergence of forces seeking equalibrium with each other.
Personally, I never talk about my faith because faith is not something everyone shares equally. Science is shared equally because it is subject to very rigerous and stringent standards of proof...and even THEN...is later determined to be less than 100% accurate. Faith requires no proof and no justification and therefore makes discussing it rather pointless in the end.
If more Americans than Icelanders are prepared to fill in their lack of absolute certainty of EVERYTHING with faith then I think that is a TESTIMONY to our open mindedness and not an indictment of it. Icelanders have always struck me as arrogant and obnoxious people and this would tend to confirm that. They apparently know it all.
Oh, and for the record, what scientific contributions have Icelanders made and what scientific contributions have Americans made? Losing the race? Yeah...right.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 10-11-2010).]
IP: Logged
12:37 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 10031 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
Need a graph of who is where in the "science race" to compare to your graph I suppose. IMO if we wre racing in our practice of science I'd be worried about getting off base in the rush.
IP: Logged
01:30 PM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
China and India, there's half the world's population. A great deal of their religion does not include physical magic so creation does not come up much as a religious beginning of man. I betting "huh?" was not on the multichoice answer list.
And India invented higher math, quite the contibution for an unlisted country.
IP: Logged
12:00 AM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
I did the same day you stopped torturing and killing dogs.
I take that as a "yes."
quote
Just another "F" for our leftist controlled socialized public schools. I am shocked.
I am sure the teachers union would see this and think, "we need even more money for education."
The point is: I keep waiting for you to post something that doesn't 1) begin with unsupported (and generally unsupportable), politically based premises and then 2) proceed to draw totally illogical conclusions from them. It hasn't happened yet.
I challenge you to provide substantiation (not just opinion) to support your assertions:
1) that public schools are "leftist controlled,"
2) that public schools are "socialized,"
and your conclusion:
3) that these two premises, even if true, somehow result in public acceptance of Evolution being lower in the U.S. than in 32 of the other 33 countries cited.
While it's still subject to debate, here's an example of what real substantiating data and its citation look like:
Well Marv, based on the graph it seems schools teach evolution. That combined with a want to fit in might contribute. I think "fund" or fundamental might be open to interpretation maybe. I suppose it could be considered leftist to insist that for one not to believe in evolution they must be less intelligent.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-12-2010).]
IP: Logged
11:06 AM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 10031 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
The point is: I keep waiting for you to post something that doesn't 1) begin with unsupported (and generally unsupportable), politically based premises and then 2) proceed to draw totally illogical conclusions from them. It hasn't happened yet.
I challenge you to provide substantiation (not just opinion) to support your assertions:
1) that public schools are "leftist controlled,"
2) that public schools are "socialized,"
and your conclusion:
3) that these two premises, even if true, somehow result in public acceptance of Evolution being lower in the U.S. than in 32 of the other 33 countries cited.
LOL
You want a rational debate after coming at me with that ridiculous and trite remark? I'll humor you.
The public schools are not socialized? By definition they are socialized. If you have a problem with that terminology, then take it up with Merriam-Webster.
Yes, leftist controlled is an opinion but I believe it is a very valid one considering that the teacher's union is far left. Do you deny that the teacher's union has a substantial influence on education in this country? Do you deny that the career government workers who run our schools have a leftist leaning? Do you deny that our schools are performing very poorly?
My conclusion is a very logical one. I hold the people in charge accountable for the terrible job they are doing to educate our youth. The ones in charge are the government and the teacher's union. Do you deny that the government had direct control and the teacher's union indirect control of our schools?
BTW, while studies and data can give limited information, it still requires analysis and it is only as good as the data that is entered. I work with child welfare data every day and I can make the numbers say anything that I want them to. If you think you win a debate by just posting studies and data without making any real arguments, then you are sorely mistaken.
IP: Logged
11:28 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
bah - just watch ANY show geared towards kids you'll quickly see what are priorities science most certainly is NOT one of them. we only need a few select geeks. everyone else just needs to be clever & social. and, last thing ANYONE should be is concerned about the future, or in any way responsible.
IP: Logged
12:08 PM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
First you would have us accept your premises without question, just because it's your opinion and just because you say so. Then you somehow conclude that a public school system which is "leftist controlled" and "socialized" produces a more conservative outcome (i.e. lower acceptance of evolution) than 32 of 33 other countries studied. That is, at best, illogical.
Are you actually saying that you don't support universal, publicly-funded elementary and secondary education? For the record, most school systems in the U.S. are independent of direct federal, state, or local government control. Yes, they are mostly tax supported and also usually receive supplemental funds from government sources, but school boards are independently elected and most school districts are independently administered. By your own criteria, schools in the U.S. are far less "socialized" than our "socialized" police departments, "socialized" fire departments, "socialized" water and sewer utilities, "socialized" street and highway systems, etc.
quote
I work with ... data every day and I can make the numbers say anything that I want them to.
No, thanks! My only interest in data is in what true facts I can determine from it. I have no interest in manipulating data simply to validate my own personal prejudices. Unlike politics, good science demands honesty and personal integrity at every step.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 10-13-2010).]
IP: Logged
02:13 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 10031 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
bah - just watch ANY show geared towards kids you'll quickly see what are priorities science most certainly is NOT one of them. we only need a few select geeks. everyone else just needs to be clever & social. and, last thing ANYONE should be is concerned about the future, or in any way responsible.
Case in point... try talking about science based goings on with any mid 20's college student... Anyone that is not in a science/engineering based program is going to be confused and annoyed.
IP: Logged
03:15 PM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
Well Marv, based on the graph it seems schools teach evolution. That combined with a want to fit in might contribute. I think "fund" or fundamental might be open to interpretation maybe. I suppose it could be considered leftist to insist that for one not to believe in evolution they must be less intelligent.
Yes, schools teach evolution. Why? Because it is good science. Like the periodic table or the theory of gravity.
Why anyone would say they don't "believe" in evolution is beyond me. It's akin to saying you don't believe in hydrogen.
You can perform experiments and see the results for yourself. One I remember being taught in middle school, and I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this: A person has a bunch of fruit flies in a cage. They systematically destroy black fruit flies (like a bird). A genetic mutation happens and an albino fruit fly is born. They keep destroying black fruit flies, and next thing you know you have a whole population of white fruit flies. They evolved to suit their environment.
The powers that be still need modern day slaves. We still need people to cook our hamburgers and fries for us. Functional illiteracy helps us to achieve it.
An absolute pearl of wisdom Nick
IP: Logged
04:02 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by ryan.hess: Yes, schools teach evolution. Why? Because it is good science. Like the periodic table or the theory of gravity.
Why anyone would say they don't "believe" in evolution is beyond me. It's akin to saying you don't believe in hydrogen.
You can perform experiments and see the results for yourself. One I remember being taught in middle school, and I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this: A person has a bunch of fruit flies in a cage. They systematically destroy black fruit flies (like a bird). A genetic mutation happens and an albino fruit fly is born. They keep destroying black fruit flies, and next thing you know you have a whole population of white fruit flies. They evolved to suit their environment.
but they are still fruit flies adaption is NOT evelution. tho - I do agree adapation is the engine of evolution. I dont think evolution itself has EVER been actually shown a controlled experiment. I think there is a layer missing in the theory of evolution, which I think is cellular intelligence.
IP: Logged
04:04 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 10031 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
Yes, schools teach evolution. Why? Because it is good science. Like the periodic table or the theory of gravity.
Why anyone would say they don't "believe" in evolution is beyond me. It's akin to saying you don't believe in hydrogen.
You can perform experiments and see the results for yourself. One I remember being taught in middle school, and I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this: A person has a bunch of fruit flies in a cage. They systematically destroy black fruit flies (like a bird). A genetic mutation happens and an albino fruit fly is born. They keep destroying black fruit flies, and next thing you know you have a whole population of white fruit flies. They evolved to suit their environment.
I don't believe that Evolution is anywhere near the level of scientific rigor as gravity or the the description of the basic elements. If given the mass of two objects, a calculation can be made to determine the exact amount of attraction between them. Also a course can be plotted that will take a space probe precisely to various planets in our solar system.
Given a set population of flies and all other inputs you cannot calculate anything to the degree of accuracy as you can with gravity. At when generation will the albino appear? What other mutations will randomly appear? At what generation will the fruit fly become a new species? How will any of these calculations apply to other species if at all?
Evolution either has trouble answering those types of questions or can't answer them at all. Personally, I think there is another mechanism at work that has not been discovered yet. Natural Selection is too limited to explain the diversity of life. Just like volcanism and erosion could not explain the land masses of the Earth. It took Plate Tectonics to do that.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: --------My conclusion is a very logical one. I hold the people in charge accountable for the terrible job they are doing to educate our youth. The ones in charge are the government and the teacher's union. Do you deny that the government had direct control and the teacher's union indirect control of our schools?--------------
.
Maybe your conclusion is barking up the wrong tree?? MY belief is, the schools are all being supplied with students who have already been compromised by poor, often dreadful, parenting...and thereby don't stand a chance in H3ll of producing flawless graduates. I agree that they don't HELP...but the damage has already been done, and continues to be done, aided and abetted by FURTHER abysmal parenting I would support the teachers above modern parents, poor sods Nick
Nick
IP: Logged
04:13 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
A genetic mutation happens and an albino fruit fly is born.
Genetic mutations are normally detrimental and short lived. Genetics are the very things that point to some of the theory evolution's flaws. There are so many versions of evolutional theory out there that bits and pieces are being cross used to try and make points.
---
You might ask, "How can we be certain of such facts about mutations if they are so rare?" That is a good question.
The answer is this: Although mutations only occur with extreme infrequence in nature, in the laboratory we can produce them at will. The usual method is radiation, but certain chemicals can accomplish it also. A sufficient amount of x-rays applied to the genes of the germ cells of an organism will produce mutations in its offspring. As a result, research geneticists have had the opportunity to study the effects of hundreds of thousands of mutations.
Mutations rank equally with fossils and natural selection as the three most important aspects of life evolution. Fossil evidence in the sedimentary rock strata is supposed to provide evidence that species evolution has occurred in the past, and natural selection and mutations are the only means (mechanisms) by which it could occur.
...there is simply no evidence that evolution of life forms has ever occurred in the past. ... accidental gene reshufflings (which evolutionists call "natural selection") can indeed produce changes within species, but are totally incapable of producing different species.
...far from being beneficial, mutations constitute something terrible that ruin and destroy organisms, either in the first generation or soon thereafter. Not only is it impassible for mutations to cause the evolutionary process,they weaken or terminate the life process.
So modern evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into neo-Darwinism. This is the revised teaching that it is mutations plus natural selection (not natural selection alone) which have produced all life forms on Planet Earth.
"Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on random mutations." *M. Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96.
Neo-Darwinists speculate that mutations accomplished all cross-species changes, and then natural selection afterward refined them. This, of course, assumes that mutations and natural selection are positive and purposive.
Mutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but an educated fact, observed by experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion. Mutations are always random, and never purposive or directed. This has repeatedly been observed in actual experimentation with mutations.
Evolution requires purposive changes. Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is needed for organic evolution. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure.
Tossing a single mutation into a living organism is like a speeding automobile that has just collided with a tree. Accidents can be dangerous, and mutations are always both.
I hate getting into stuff like this. I'll sum up my viewpoints quickly with this.
Natural selection is quite obviously at work, The theory of evolution uses the idea of natural selection, but it's not impossible to believe in natural selection and not evolution.
I am catholic, and I do believe in creationism, and it would take a very long time, and a lot of back-up-able research for me to get into it and I don't have time at the moment.
Those things said, this is one of the things that helped convince me that the theory of evolution is not possible from the complete beginning (again, natural selection is fine and provable).
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
He could only work with what he could see back in his day. which means he didn't know that things get MORE complex as they get smaller, from human, to organ, to cells, etc. cells have a lot more things going on than he could possibly have ever dreamed of
The one thing I watched a while back that had scientist's themselves admitting the only possible answer was intelligent design discussed this here
This thing has a freakin electric motor on it's butt. They said the only closest thing has about 5 of the 30 some parts necessary to make it work. Darwins theory only works if it can be one small slight thing at one time that proves useful in some form or fashion, and they continuously made the point that there were no useful things that the other 25 things could do one at a time.
Admittedly, the above paragraph is based off a memory from 2 years ago, if I find the video I will post some more on it.
-Brandon
[This message has been edited by cooguyfish (edited 10-12-2010).]
IP: Logged
04:22 PM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
... a course can be plotted that will take a space probe precisely to various planets in our solar system.
Not without one or more small mid-course corrections that can't precisely be determined in advance. An n-body (n >2) gravitational system does not have a deterministic solution. Such a system is chaotic, and a Newtonian solution will only be approximate. Look it up. (The trajectory of a spacecraft traveling between Earth and the Moon is essentially a 4-body problem: the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, and the spacecraft itself. This is a real-world problem that has no deterministic solution.)
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 10-12-2010).]
