Kansas board boosts evolution education

[HERESY]

ame old tactics - using quotes out of context and taking words literally

You typed it, used big shouting words for emphasis, and gave specific dates. Why shouldn't I take it literally?

I am pretty sure you haven't written even a single scientific paper in your life so you don't know that people don't need to read old papers to cite them, they know what's there because they have read it when it came out

You don't know what science courses I have taken in high school, nor do you know what I have taken in college. Wait...you don't mean that literally, bud.

But based on the fact that you barely type cohesive paragraphs, it would be safe to say that YOU have never typed a single scientific paper in your life.

when I say nobody reads odl papers I mean that nobody reads papers that are not relevant anymore to get information from them the same way that nobody reads Watson and Crick paper about DNA structure that came in 1953 and others of that kind any more but these papers still get cited

Son, you can polish the turd all you want, but the turd is still a piece of shit. How can you say old information is not relevant anymore? Just because something is "old" does not mean it isn't relevant. In certain case or fields is it best to get the most up to date info? Yes! In certain cases is it best to get the oldest info? Yes! Again, you are saying NOBODY reads Watson and Crick, but how do YOU know they don't? If the person is going back over their work and expounding on that because they found something in their writings that everyone else missed you can't say "nobody reads" or "nobody does this".

Son, everyday I have to read old court cases (case law and precedent) in and out of class. Why? Because I have to study why/how court cases have shaped the way we interpret the constitution and how they have an influence on our criminal justice system. It would be FOOLISH for me to say "I can't read that" based on the age of thd case. The same can be said for science and any other field. If something is FACTUAL or TRUE, it doesn't matter how old it is, and you nor anyone else can place a stamp on it and reduce it to nothing on the sole grounds that it is old.

stop taking words literally and instead focus on the thoughts being expressed, I know that understanding things is the biggest problem of creationists but it's worth the effort to try

Again, you used caps and gave specific dates. That implies you meant those things LITERALLY, and if you didn't you need to enroll in an english class that focuses on proper writing concepts and critical thinking. As far as the creationist insult, I'm not trippin on that. I have my beliefs, you have yours, and you won't see me bashing you for your beliefs or saying you are an idiot for believing the world just magically appeared (but resort to insulting me for saying God exists.)

See ya around, toothpick!

 

[HERESY]

BTW we can throw Darwin out the window because his books are not relevant anymore, we have the modern synthetic theory, we have sequence data, we have genes and molecules and a lot of toher things, he didn't know about these things and nobody will sit down to read his books except for historical reasons, because they won't tell you much about the current understanding of evolution, sciences progresses and improves itself all the time

yes we can throw Darwin out the window, but we can't throw out evolution because all the new evidence supports it while it rejects almost everything that the bible says

And I am sure all of those things that we have were compared to what Darwin wrote and used to prove or disprove what he wrote. So do you know what that means? People had to READ old documents and didn't put a stamp on it.

 

[ThaG]

Son, everyday I have to read old court cases (case law and precedent) in and out of class. Why? Because I have to study why/how court cases have shaped the way we interpret the constitution and how they have an influence on our criminal justice system. It would be FOOLISH for me to say "I can't read that" based on the age of thd case. The same can be said for science and any other field. If something is FACTUAL or TRUE, it doesn't matter how old it is, and you nor anyone else can place a stamp on it and reduce it to nothing on the sole grounds that it is old.

law, huh?

that explains a lot of things

anyway, would you go and read Nurse and Hartwell's papers from the early 80s describing various cdc mutants in S.pombe and S.cerevisiae if you want to learn something about cell cycle?

I am sure you wouldn't, you would pick a review written in the last 6 months

you don't study evolution from Darwin's books for exactly the same reason

So you're trying to tell me we have to learn about the world around us from a book that's 5000 years old?

That's just ridiculous

 

[HERESY]

law, huh?

that explains a lot of things

Yes law, and what does it explain? I may branch off and go into criminology. If I do this I will be required to major in a behavioral science, and most likely, I'll need to minor in something else if I decide to deal with forensics...

If you are somehow implying that some forms of law don't branch off into science you are dead wrong.

anyway, would you go and read Nurse and Hartwell's papers from the early 80s describing various cdc mutants in S.pombe and S.cerevisiae if you want to learn something about cell cycle?

First of all they are credible researchers in various fields (who have conducted nobel prize winning research) so I would pay close attention to what they have to say. However, if I were playing off their work and conducting my own reserach, I'd make sure I did it and make sure I used my own yeast. Would I rely solely on their findings? No, I wouldn't, but if their findings are still VALID/TRUTHFUL/FACTUAL I would. My question to you is a simple one. Is their work still valid?

I am sure you wouldn't, you would pick a review written in the last 6 months

Again, that would depend on the research I am doing. If I were trying to play off something they did, or I could capitalize on something they missed, I would refer to their work. Son, last semester in one of my soc classess, I typed up a ten plus page essay on W.E.B. DuBois and his contributions to sociology AND science. This man has contributed so much to the scientific field (especially when it comes to the use of empirical research/data), but I didn't pick any reviews and couldn't cite a 60 day source because none were availible so do you know what I did? I went back and got HIS titles that HE wrote over 70 years ago.

you don't study evolution from Darwin's books for exactly the same reason

Son it doesn't matter WHAT you study it for. You don't have to study something AND agree with it. The point is that in order to stduy from Darwins books you have to read Darwins books.

So you're trying to tell me we have to learn about the world around us from a book that's 5000 years old?

No I am not telling you that you HAVE to learn about the world from a book that is 5000 years old. What I am telling you is very simple: KNOWLEDGE, TRUTH or FACT should not be considered "invalid" solely on the age of the source/origin. IF SOMETHING IS FACTUAL or TRUTHFUL (ABSOLUTE) IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW OLD IT IS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

 

[HERESY]

:grabs popcorn:

 

[|GOD|||ZILLA|]

humans used to be 50 ft. tall.. think about it.. evolution shrinks everything.. crocodiles aint' changed nothin' but size.. pretty soon we'll all be midgets.

 

[ThaG]

thag, stop, and please dont ever call me a fucking monkey again. you are doing a disservice to all of sicence by making these ridiculous generalizations and tossing out words that have strict definitions.

here is some backgound which you should already know, which leaves me in dismay as why you assert such bullshit.

there is no such thing as an order of monkeys, yes we are in the same order as monkeys, but how does this make us a monkey?! with your logic, i could also be considered a yellow fin tuna because we are in the same phyla as them.

the order that monkeys and humans belong to is primates.

you can find monkeys in two parvorders under the suborder haplorrhini, "new world monkeys" can be found in the parvorder platyrrhini, "old world monkeys" are found in parvorder catarrhini.

humans are also in the parvorder catarrhini, but this doesnt mean we are a monkey. we are in a different superfamily called hominoidea, we are in the family hominidae.

your second paragraph contradicts itself, i think you are using the word "monkey" too loosely. my whole point in my original post was that we didnt evolve from monkeys, why are you telling me something i already said?

humans didnt evolve from monkeys, we evolved from a common ancestor of apes.

I agree with you, the reason I used the word "monkey" because I think a lot of people here find the words "monkey" and "primate" synonimous

you're absolutely right in strict terms

 

[ThaG]

humans used to be 50 ft. tall.. think about it.. evolution shrinks everything.. crocodiles aint' changed nothin' but size.. pretty soon we'll all be midgets.

humans used to be 50ft tall?

when?

in fact most hominid fossils are not tall at all

 

[2-0-NINE]

HAHAHAHA@ThaG

When I laugh, I'm laughing at you, not with or for you.

 

[HERESY]

humans used to be 50ft tall?

when?

in fact most hominid fossils are not tall at all

literally?