New Orleans schools ban creationism and 'revisionist' history in rebuke of Texas

Dec 19, 2012 Full story: The Raw Story 206

The school board for Orleans Parish in Louisiana voted Tuesday night to ban the teaching of creationism as science and what they called a "revisionist" history curriculum promoted by the state of Texas.

Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#163 Jan 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Correct. But more precisely, mutations produce devolution except on a set of measure zero.
Sure, if you wanna keep on beating up your tired old fundie caricatures.(shrug)

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#164 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
This is both surprising, and a bit of good news, if they can evolve so can other states .... well, probably not. Louisiana isn't really that bad, it's just surrounded by a lot of idiots.
It's been a while since I lived there, but when I was there Louisiana consistently ranked in the bottom 5 in just about every category measured for education. I had hoped it improved, but the Bobby Jindal started pandering to the Christian Right, so maybe in isolated pockets it has improved. But I doubt their measures of effectiveness have gone up much statewide.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#165 Jan 7, 2013
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been a while since I lived there, but when I was there Louisiana consistently ranked in the bottom 5 in just about every category measured for education. I had hoped it improved, but the Bobby Jindal started pandering to the Christian Right, so maybe in isolated pockets it has improved. But I doubt their measures of effectiveness have gone up much statewide.
Most of Louisiana is "isolated pockets." :P

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#166 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of Louisiana is "isolated pockets." :P
LOL!
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#167 Jan 15, 2013
Shubee wrote:
Science class is no place for arm-waving and religious dogma. So prove to middle-school students that the number of biological trees on planet earth can't possibly be 2, 3, 4 or even more.
The number of separate biological trees should be determined by measurements in actual experiments.
Still no answer.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#168 Jan 15, 2013
Shubee wrote:
Science class is no place for arm-waving and religious dogma. So prove to middle-school students that the number of biological trees on planet earth can't possibly be 2, 3, 4 or even more.
The number of separate biological trees should be determined by measurements in actual experiments.
The Dude wrote:
No, students should be taught the current accepted scientific concepts and critical thinking.
Critical thinking calls for students to discern the religious dogma of Darwinists since currently there are no experiments to measure the number of separate biological trees.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#169 Jan 15, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text> Critical thinking calls for students to discern the religious dogma of Darwinists since currently there are no experiments to measure the number of separate biological trees.
Firstly, you can not call evolution a religious dogma. By it's very nature, religious dogma can not be applied to multiple religions simultaneously. One can not be both a Christian and a Hindu.

However, there are Hindus who acknowledge reality. There are Christians that acknowledge reality.

Reality is not dogma.

Second, there is a very simple experiment to map out biological trees. You take DNA, you analyze it. You make a chart based on similarities and differences. Then you count the number of branches.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#170 Jan 15, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, you can not call evolution a religious dogma.
I'm not calling evolution religious dogma. I'm calling the unquestioned axiom that "the number of biological trees on planet earth can't possibly be 2, 3, 4 or even more" a religious dogma.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#171 Jan 15, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
there is a very simple experiment to map out biological trees. You take DNA, you analyze it. You make a chart based on similarities and differences. Then you count the number of branches.
Arm-waving is not a scientific defense of your intensely religious presupposition.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#172 Jan 15, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not calling evolution religious dogma. I'm calling the unquestioned axiom that "the number of biological trees on planet earth can't possibly be 2, 3, 4 or even more" a religious dogma.
By "trees" do you mean different instances of life emerging so that (let's say corals) are not actually related to animal groups but rather are members of an entirely different tree of life?

No one in science is saying that can't happen. What they are saying is this:

If life started multiple times, the "other trees" have been wiped out. Everything we see today belongs to the same tree. However, it's still possible that deep in the mantle or at the bottom of the ocean someplace there are lifeforms so diverse as to make us re-evaluate that position.

Also, they say this:

It is possible that there is other life on the planet which is not DNA/RNA based and unrecognizable to us as we understand biology now. A strange patina on a rock in the desert may not be weathering, but rather a silica based lifeform as of yet unclassified. However, we have no solid evidence supporting this.

That's hardly dogma.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#173 Jan 15, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Arm-waving is not a scientific defense of your intensely religious presupposition.
There is no presupposition.

Your original post was unclear. I responded to my best guess at what you were trying to say.

I now suspect that your position is different.

Still, the same experiment would work.

Evaluate all known life forms. Match up similarities and differences. Use that to determine whether or not they are all related.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#174 Jan 16, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
Evaluate all known life forms. Match up similarities and differences. Use that to determine whether or not they are all related.
Your logic and methodology is obviously unimpressive. To illustrate, I propose that you study the grand library of all the conspicuous books and journals currently in print. Yes, great similarities, adaptations, spin-offs and plagiarisms will be easy to recognize. However, work as hard as you can, you will be unable to rationalize the history of the grand library by imagining its highly ordered present-day existence to have come about according to the following empirically unverified procedure for building a library and acquiring knowledge:

Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters, and rearrange subsequences in the string of letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1967, p. 110.
http://everythingimportant.org/devolution

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#175 Jan 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Your logic and methodology is obviously unimpressive. To illustrate, I propose that you study the grand library of all the conspicuous books and journals currently in print. Yes, great similarities, adaptations, spin-offs and plagiarisms will be easy to recognize. However, work as hard as you can, you will be unable to rationalize the history of the grand library by imagining its highly ordered present-day existence to have come about according to the following empirically unverified procedure for building a library and acquiring knowledge:
While I acknowledge that the Chinese language differs significantly from English, I'm going to use English in my example because that is the language I speak and the one in which we are conversing.

In a library of English books, every book is written using words. Every word is written using letters. The letters in one book make the same sounds as the letters in another book.

The words in one book have the same basic meaning as the words in another book.

You can date the books (using the handy dates in the cover) and put them in chronological order.

You can see how words which are still in use today have changed over time. How, in Shakespeare's time, a word my have a slightly different spelling. Or how during the Civil War the style of "s" in a word with double "s" at the end often looks like a cursive "f" by todays standards.

Small changes which can be tracked over time.

You can even backtrack specific words to their origin points. Shakespeare famously invented words.

You can track words based on onomatopoeia to discover its origin.

If you want to branch into additional related languages you can see how Latin, spread by Rome, influenced and merged with local dialects to produce the Romantic languages. You can see German's influence in English. You can trace words back to the land of their origin (algebra for example) by focusing on the language used to construct the word.

It's all doable.
Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters, and rearrange subsequences in the string of letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete.
That wouldn't take as long as you think. It's a question of how many trials are happening.

If there are a hundred billion copies of the phrase being altered slightly, and every time anything new came up a new hundred billion copies of that change were being altered, the library would fill up in no time at all.

Plus there would be a nearly infinite number of additional, new and valuable texts which would have been discovered during the process.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#176 Jan 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Your logic and methodology is obviously unimpressive. To illustrate, I propose that you study the grand library of all the conspicuous books and journals currently in print. Yes, great similarities, adaptations, spin-offs and plagiarisms will be easy to recognize. However, work as hard as you can, you will be unable to rationalize the history of the grand library by imagining its highly ordered present-day existence to have come about according to the following empirically unverified procedure for building a library and acquiring knowledge:
Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters, and rearrange subsequences in the string of letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1967, p. 110.
http://everythingimportant.org/devolution
So you have read nothing on biology. Good to know.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#177 Jan 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have read nothing on biology. Good to know.
So you know nothing about evolutionary genetics. That's a caution for all.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#178 Jan 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So you know nothing about evolutionary genetics. That's a caution for all.
I do know way more than you, since evolutionary genetics is part of biology and chemistry it's plain to see that you know even less than I gave you credit for. Nothing in biology makes sense without the light of evolution.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#179 Jan 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
Nothing in biology makes sense without the light of evolution.
I agree that you're slightly more intelligent than a parrot.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#180 Jan 16, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
While I acknowledge that the Chinese language differs significantly from English, I'm going to use English in my example because that is the language I speak and the one in which we are conversing.
In a library of English books, every book is written using words. Every word is written using letters. The letters in one book make the same sounds as the letters in another book.
The words in one book have the same basic meaning as the words in another book.
You can date the books (using the handy dates in the cover) and put them in chronological order.
You can see how words which are still in use today have changed over time. How, in Shakespeare's time, a word my have a slightly different spelling. Or how during the Civil War the style of "s" in a word with double "s" at the end often looks like a cursive "f" by todays standards.
Small changes which can be tracked over time.
You can even backtrack specific words to their origin points. Shakespeare famously invented words.
You can track words based on onomatopoeia to discover its origin.
If you want to branch into additional related languages you can see how Latin, spread by Rome, influenced and merged with local dialects to produce the Romantic languages. You can see German's influence in English. You can trace words back to the land of their origin (algebra for example) by focusing on the language used to construct the word.
It's all doable.
<quoted text>
That wouldn't take as long as you think. It's a question of how many trials are happening.
If there are a hundred billion copies of the phrase being altered slightly, and every time anything new came up a new hundred billion copies of that change were being altered, the library would fill up in no time at all.
Plus there would be a nearly infinite number of additional, new and valuable texts which would have been discovered during the process.
Yes, but how does that prove that fish turned into philosophers?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#181 Jan 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that you're slightly more intelligent than a parrot.
So, Eugene, you never did tell us which home school group you are a "professor" for.

Are you a "professor" in the same way you used to claim that you were a "scientist"?

IOW lying about it?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#182 Jan 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, but how does that prove that fish turned into philosophers?
You picked the analogy of books in the library and changes to the wording resulting in different words, sentences, paragraphs and even books.

Similarly changes in DNA result in different genes.

Show me a fish without genes or a philosopher without genes and you win.

Show me a fish or a philosopher which have different components to their genes (AGTC) and you win.

Show me that no fish nor philosopher has ever been shown to have different DNA than his parents and you win.

Otherwise, you're in trouble.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min deutscher Nationa... 121,063
Darwin on the rocks 24 min Chimney1 371
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 28 min Chimney1 138,203
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 58 min Chimney1 381
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 1 hr Chimney1 719
Monkey VS Man Oct 19 Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE