Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have used the term "tyranny of the majority" several times in this context. It's a term you might wish to familiarize yourself with. It describes a phenomenon discussed at length in numerous of the Federalist Papers, as well as in the writings of Paine, Jefferson, and many of the other political philosophers you profess to be an adherent of.

You are being absurd. Did you actually follow the entire thread?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I did see Friday's Maher show. It was nice to see Bill Maher look completely discombobulated for a change. Sullivan's argument with him seemed more about the body of Chomsky's work than the actual words he said on the show, which led lots of people to think "who the hell is Noam Chomsky?"

My TiVo cut off at the credits, so I did not see the panelists mingle after Maher signed off. Turns out that I missed something indeed. From James Wolcott:

• The strangest thing in the broadcast happened when the show was over. The panelists stood, Sullivan's back to the camera, and as the credits rolled, he began squeezing, massaging his own buttocks with his hands. I thought he might be trying to dislodge a thong strap that had run up rather deep, but no, he seemed to be feeling up his own butt. I've never seen anything quite like it, unless I was hallucinating, and if I start hallucinating about Andrew Sullivan copping a feel of his own butt, it's time to check into the clinic for a little Elizabeth Wurtzel layoff.

Yowza!

BTW, I really don't know anything about Chomsky, other than he's an academic commentator with a liberal outlook, and have never read his stuff. I know Slave's take on Chomsky is that he Hates America. Anyone other takers? Anyone know of an analysis of his stuff that doesn't involve either idolatry or spittle?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Jesus, at a certain point you just have to say "No, I'm not going to accept the absurd." hank, if there were a God interested enough to create Adam and Eve out of dust, where the hell's he been for the last several millenia? I don't have the bandwidth to lay out all the facts suppirting Darwin's theory, but suffice it to say, a reasonable man can view evolution and say "Yep, thats plausible." The same cannot be said for the Adam and Eve story. At ceratin point, we have to bag thios softheaded politeness toward religion and just say out loud, "It probably did not happen that way." Maybe Darwin isn't 100% on the mark, but I look at his data and say "Well, we certainbly did come from apes, so at a minimum, he's prt right." And thats a hell of a lot more than any creationist can ever claim.

But I could beat you silly on the facts and logic all day and then you'd just say "Oh, well, unless you can prove every last stitch of the chain, I don't buy evolution." Thats willful refusal to deal with facts. Darwin had evidence. Thats how we measure things. When you get evidence supporting an alternative, you get to debate Darwin. Until then, you're just wasting breath and looking absurd.

And stop with the God-Science gimick. Raising tautologies is not rebuttal.

Its a theory. A theory has to have evidence or its not even a theory, its an idea w/o support (think Ty's conspiracy posts). I'm not trying to argue that creationism is anything at all- the sticker only says that evolution is a theory- it is a theory. If you understand science you understand that a theory can and should be questioned. Maybe god's an alternative, maybe a cruiser ship from alpha-Centori dumped its waste tank in the ocean and life sprang from fecal bacteria, maybe something no one has thought of is true. Your very line of argument shows that science education, as it exists, has failed you.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
No, I actually was persuaded. Well done. I knew Flinty wasn't my uncle.

Cousin?

If so, don't worry, Coltrane. All indications are that Bush II Redux will focus on prospective mates, not the consuanguinity resulting from it.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Its a theory. A theory has to have evidence or its not even a theory, its an idea w/o support (think Ty's conspiracy posts). I'm not trying to argue that creationism is anything at all- the sticker only says that evolution is a theory- it is a theory. If you understand science you understand that a theory can and should be questioned. Maybe god's an alternative, maybe a cruiser ship from alpha-Centori dumped its waste tank in the ocean and life sprang from fecal bacteria, maybe something no one has thought of is true. Your very line of argument shows that science education, as it exists, has failed you.

I think Sebby is weighing the evidence of Creationism vs. Evolution, and concluding that evolutionary theory has plenty of evidence to support it and thus is more likely to be true; whereas Creationism has no evidence to support it, which suggests a high probability that it is not true (although it doesn't disprove it). I don't think he's claiming evolution as a hard fact.

You guys aren't arguing the same point. You're saying evolution is just a theory, and Sebby is saying that evolution is clearly more plausible than creationism. I would say you're both correct.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Dingus, you don't have facts. Darwin had facts. Thats the difference. Coltrane's belief in evolution is not "faith" - its resaoned analysis predicated on data which has been scrutinized and withstood that scrutiny. Creationism is a fiction.

Give me a single "fact" behind creationism. has anyone found Adam and Eve's grave? Has anyone located the serpent's corpse? Have Eden's ruins been located on a map?

Fiction vs. facts. Perhpas the facts are incomplete, but they are compelling. So compelling they are worthy of acceptance as a theory, a theory so plausible and sensible and immune to assault that it has been widely accepeted by people of divergent cultures as wholly, or at least mostly, accurate.

I'm fairly sure that Coltrane and you have never studied much beyond the presence of some fossil record to support dino changing into mammals and apes into people. I am positive that Coltrane hasn't the educational background to make a "reasoned analysis" (no offense, neither do I) of the data. I am double positive that you simply accept the theory because you were told that is what scientists say happened.

You miss entirely the steps that bring a "weak theory" to becoming stronger. One looks at the theory and asks the hard questions:
How could a single celled organism become multi-celled?
Develop organ systems?
How did reproduction by splitting become sexual reproduction?

These aren't simple missing pieces, there are big gaps. Google them- you'll find no explaination. I certainly believe in evolution as hypothesized by Darwin. That is, species adapt and change. But you are on very weak ground if you think there are no holes in evolution, and if there are holes, well my boy- what you got there is a theory.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
No, I actually was persuaded. Well done. I knew Flinty wasn't my uncle.

That's because I'm your Daddy. Now hand over that allowance, Daddy needs another pack of Marlboros.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
That's because I'm your Daddy. Now hand over that allowance, Daddy needs another pack of Marlboros.

Uncle and Daddy? When did I move to a red state?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
These aren't simple missing pieces, there are big gaps. Google them- you'll find no explaination. I certainly believe in evolution as hypothesized by Darwin. That is, species adapt and change.

No, that is the theory of natural selection - a theory that has been repeatedly demonstrated by empirical data, both in the form of observation of natural selection in nature and validation through controlled laboratory experiments. Evolutionary theory is the application of natural selection to explain the origin of the diversity of life on this planet.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
No, that is the theory of natural selection - a theory that has been repeatedly demonstrated by empirical data, both in the form of observation of natural selection in nature and validation through controlled laboratory experiments. Evolutionary theory is the application of natural selection to explain the origin of the diversity of life on this planet.

Fuck that. If you truly believe in natural selection, including sexual selection, can you offer even a strained theory as to why, a million years into the homonid lineage, a female that looks like Barbara Mikulski could be produced.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Anyone with the slightest grounding in the sciences would agree evolution is a theory. Science isn't suppose to be about selecting one of two attempts to explain. Science is suppose to be about questioning how things work, and continuing to refine what we think we know. To not call evolution a theory is to welcome the cloak of the dark ages to surround you. In fact the lesson that science is about questioning is far more important than any theory that some Georgia HS students might have to learn about.

And SS, the reason they put the sticker there was that evolution is the most controversial of the theories in that book, I'm sure. And "string theory" is by its name a theory, and for that matter not in a HS textbook anyway- you realize that people as educated as say Atticus or me hardly grasp it's subtleties? and Big Bang is an extremely unproven theory, and I'm sure reported as such in any textbook.

Just admit, for once, dumb people accept anything said by a scientist as gospel. If it'll help you to make the admisssion, know that I have a bachelor's degree, in sciente.

What's wrong with a science teacher explaining what "theory" means? And why limit the warning sticker to theories. Why not a sticker saying that there are no laws in science, merely statistical probabilities? We don't want Georgia youth to be misled about gravity.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Give me a single "fact" behind creationism. has anyone found Adam and Eve's grave? Has anyone located the serpent's corpse? Have Eden's ruins been located on a map?

They found most of it, but it's missing a rib.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Fuck that. If you truly believe in natural selection, including sexual selection, can you offer even a strained theory as to why, a million years into the homonid lineage, a female that looks like Barbara Mikulski could be produced.

Alcohol.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Its a theory. A theory has to have evidence or its not even a theory, its an idea w/o support (think Ty's conspiracy posts). I'm not trying to argue that creationism is anything at all- the sticker only says that evolution is a theory- it is a theory. If you understand science you understand that a theory can and should be questioned. Maybe god's an alternative, maybe a cruiser ship from alpha-Centori dumped its waste tank in the ocean and life sprang from fecal bacteria, maybe something no one has thought of is true. Your very line of argument shows that science education, as it exists, has failed you.

Great, let's question evolution. What is the next best theory? And while we're here, why not a sticker questioning the age of the universe? It's just guesswork afterall. It might well be only 5,000 years old, like creation science tells us.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What's wrong with a science teacher explaining what "theory" means? And why limit the warning sticker to theories. Why not a sticker saying that there are no laws in science, merely statistical probabilities? We don't want Georgia youth to be misled about gravity.

I give up, but not for any reason articulated by Coltrane or Sebastian. No, what has become clear to me, is that the average child being raised in the south is likely inbred to the extent that education and critical thought are but dreams. I now realize that all we can do is throw whatever we can at them for "science", and steer them strongly towards vocational classes.