Missouri Reps submit anti-evolution bill again

[The Dude]

the real guest wrote:

And that same evidence is open to other interpretations. If one doesn't begin with the premise that transumtation of species is true, he can very easily arrive at other conclusions. Proof is not based on speculation and conjecture.

Yet the premise is testable, as demonstrated. That's the point. That's how science works.

the real guest wrote:

Perhaps not, at least regarding adaption within a species. However, there is controversy, both scientific and otherwise, over whether one species evolves into another.

False, as demonstrated.

the real guest wrote:

This thread is very near the 100 post mark which is my limit for responding. If the issue can't be resolved within 100 posts, it's not going to be.

The issue was resolved already. In fact it was before you got here.

the real guest wrote:

I'll leave where I entered and say that I think all the opposition against the proposed bill is ridiculous.

Your baseless opinions are irrelevant.

the real guest wrote:

Merely teaching students critical thinking skills and encouraging them to apply it to Darwinism, or any other topic they may encounter in life, is precisely the ultimate goal of education. We don't need kids mindlessly regurgitating what someone else has stored in their brains. We need them to think on their own.

Science is synonymous with critical thinking. The law is like demanding driving tests must be done in cars that specifically have wheels. It's superfluous.

the real guest wrote:

If Darwinism is as nearly proven fact as you all claim it to be, you wouldn't be so fearful of opposing discussion.

If we are fearful then how come we are the only ones who have discussed the subject of evolution and you have avoided it entirely? How come I specifically asked you to subject evolution to valid criticism and you avoided it, EXACTLY as I predicted?

the real guest wrote:

Ciao.

If evolution lacked evidence as you claimed it did, you wouldn't be fearful of opposing discussion.

Guest, what specifically about ERV markers at orthologous loci amongst the great apes demonstrating common ancestry do you take issue with?

I think it is only fair by now for you to actually discuss the matter rather than respond to us with yet another vacuous dismissal without explanation, that is if you wish to retain some semblance of intellectual integrity, yes?

You've been provided with precisely what you asked for, you've been given scientific sources. You have claimed that evolution should be put under critical scrutiny and now you have that chance. Why are you backing out now? Isn't this exactly what you have been demanding all along?

Do you understand why orthologous ERV's are considered such strong evidence of common ancestry? If you do not then you are unable to claim it is insufficient. If you do, you have no reason to avoid discussing the subject with me, which I am more than willing, and capable of doing. So for the benefit of everyone here, given your VAST biological and general scientific knowledge, please inform us where Dr's Johnson and Coffin went wrong in regards to the observed retroviral DNA sequences and why?

I thank you in advance and appreciate your informed thoughts on this matter.

Oh wait. You ran away. You did EXACTLY what you claimed your opposition does while we did not.

This is why the scientific community never takes you seriously.

[Gillette]

the real guest wrote:

<quoted text>
And that same evidence is open to other interpretations. If one doesn't begin with the premise that transumtation of species is true, he can very easily arrive at other conclusions.

If you begin with the premise that the Bible genesis story is literally true, then yes, you will look at the evidence very differently. But you wouldn't be doing science, now would you?

the real guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Proof is not based on speculation and conjecture.

Science doesn't "prove" things. Science gathers the preponderance of evidence for or against a phenomenon, then crafts an explanation that FITS those facts, i.e. a scientific theory. That theory STANDS unless it is refuted over time. It can be REFUTED, but never PROVEN.

The Theory of Evolution is the best supported scientific theory every devised, has stood unrefuted for 150 years plus, and is the backbone of the modern life science. Your Bible creation stories by contrast,a re silly and easily refuted when presented as history or science.

the real guest wrote:

<quoted text>
I haven't stated whether or not I hold religious beliefs. You're just speculating even more.

We know you are some form of Protestant or fundamentalist Jesus Freak. No QUESTION about that. You aren't honest enough to say it though. Was that the cock crowing thrice? Ready to weep bitter tears? LOL

the real guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't be pissed because no one is able to prove that transumtation of species occurs.

Actually, I gave you copious links to the scientific evidence "proving" or demonstrating common descent of species one from another. You just chugged right past it and continued your lying Christian posturing. Re-visit post 59-62 and post 68 to see what you missed.

In particular, not ONE WORD from you rebutting the evidence for common descent provided by Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs). Why is that, I wonder? LOL

the real guest wrote:

<quoted text>
yet your blind faith in Darwinism is stronger than the faith of most Christians I know. LOL!

We have no "blind faith" in evolution. We have 150 years of evidence filling our museums, DNA lab, textbooks, etc.

What do you Christians have? Your "faith" that the Buybull can't be wrong? LOL

And yes, I'll bet you know a whole LOT of Christians, don't you, Jesus Freak?

the real guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps not, at least regarding adaption within a species. However, there is controversy, both scientific and otherwise, over whether one species evolves into another.

No, the only "controversy" is manufactured as a political tool by certain Jesus Freak organizations working their peculiar agenda.

[Gillette]

the real guest wrote:

This thread is very near the 100 post mark which is my limit for responding. If the issue can't be resolved within 100 posts, it's not going to be.
I'll leave where I entered and say that I think all the opposition against the proposed bill is ridiculous.
Merely teaching students critical thinking skills and encouraging them to apply it to Darwinism, or any other topic they may encounter in life, is precisely the ultimate goal of education. We don't need kids mindlessly regurgitating what someone else has stored in their brains. We need them to think on their own.
If Darwinism is as nearly proven fact as you all claim it to be, you wouldn't be so fearful of opposing discussion.
Ciao.

Sleazy moral and intellectual COWARD.

[DanFromSmithvill e]

the real guest wrote:

This thread is very near the 100 post mark which is my limit for responding. If the issue can't be resolved within 100 posts, it's not going to be.
I'll leave where I entered and say that I think all the opposition against the proposed bill is ridiculous.
Merely teaching students critical thinking skills and encouraging them to apply it to Darwinism, or any other topic they may encounter in life, is precisely the ultimate goal of education. We don't need kids mindlessly regurgitating what someone else has stored in their brains. We need them to think on their own.
If Darwinism is as nearly proven fact as you all claim it to be, you wouldn't be so fearful of opposing discussion.
Ciao.

Let me restate, what Dan is say here. I have blundered on with my unsupported rant against evolution. I have been unable to convince anyone that despite the fact that this bill doesn't come out an explicitly say that it is an attempt at supporting the teaching of creation, that it isn't. I have been thwarted at every turn on this thread by those more educated and intelligent than I am. Rather than continue to be beaten to a pulp, I will run, like a good little creation drudge coward.

Seems to me, that this bill is an attempt to not get children to think on their own or at all. If you are so stupid as to believe that an attempt by fundamentalists to get Christianity into the public schools would be overtly worded as such, you aren't doing any thinking either.

Seems to me, it is resolved. Far more people on this thread see this for what it is and are against it. They have provided more than just unsubstantiated hyperbole to support their side.

So long, we hardly new ye.

[DanFromSmithvill e]

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
Sleazy moral and intellectual COWARD.

Without any doubt.

[Kong_]

DanFromSmithville wrote:

<quoted text>Without any doubt.

My Scooby sense is telling me he is perpetrating the "pigeon playing chess" scenario right now.

[socci]

Putting the Show Me in science.

[The Dude]

And we showed 'em the science.

:-)

[Gillette]

socci wrote:

Putting the Show Me in science.

It's not like the information isn't OUT HRERE, after all.

Evolution is the backbone of the modern life sciences. The evidence for it is crammed into our museums, textbooks and DNA labs.

You're just a typical Christian BS'er who thinks he can hoodwink people with arm-waving and denials.

[Mebejedi]

the real guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly! People skeptical of the theory of evolution should indeed question it's underlying basis and make their own determination of whether it's believable or not. And that includes school age kids.

Exactly! People skeptical of the theory of a round earth should indeed question it's [sic] underlying basis and make their own determination of whether it's believable or not.
That's how religion works....that's not how science works.