Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who didn't even know what science really is:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7434834#post7434834
Evolution: the Facts.
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who didn't even know what science really is:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7434834#post7434834
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Perhaps you could recommend some good books on the subject. Maybe some of the best that you have read?
subterranean1
New Blood
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 16
Obviously, it's because they 'know' they're right, and they work backwards from there when it comes to interpreting or ignoring any evidence
Even if an equally sincere believer in some other religion does exactly the same thing and has exactly the same feelings of rightness, they're obviously just pretending or being deluded by Satan or whatever, since even if it's sometimes half-concealed under a veneer of fake humility, the creationist has a feeling of divine superiority, and as we all know, it's obviously only possible to get that by true godly intervention, rather than as a result of any kind of mental issues, as I'm sure any psychiatrist would happily confirm.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
This has got to be the most nonsensical thread in the history of the internet
I am embarrassed for JRandi having this mainstream evolutionary hogwash, claptrap , bogus jive so prominently featured in the science thread section. YIKES!!! SCARY!!!
I am embarrassed for JRandi having this mainstream evolutionary hogwash, claptrap , bogus jive so prominently featured in the science thread section. YIKES!!! SCARY!!!
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
Just because you do not understand Evolutionary science, does not mean it isn't true. You are arguing 'I do not understand who this can be so, therefor it must not be true'.
I suggest you take a few college biology courses, or do some actual reading on talkorigins.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
I know Randi personally, I can't speak for him of course, but he has said that he knows evolution to be true.
Now for once in your life, read real books on the subject.
Paul
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
I even offered to send him a good book on it but, like everyone else I've ever offered the book to, he hasn't taken the offer.
Lamuella
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,480
A new challenger approaches...
Yeah, but it's the same old swill--Argument from personal Incredulity, and being completely bloody ignorant of the topic.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Here are a couple of the most interesting and important FACTS regarding evolution....
One fact is that John Scopes, the accused in the famous 1925 Tennessee trial, to the best of the knowledge of most serious historians who studied and study the trial and events leading up to it, believe Scopes NEVER ACTUALLY TAUGHT EVOLUTION in the classroom. It was not subject matter that he himself addressed with his students.
Additionally, the Biology textbook allegedly used by Scopes, and so in effect the text so vehemently supported by the ACLU, the group most responsible for engineering the trial, was HUNTER'S CIVIC BIOLOGY, a text featuring a decidedly racist, white supremist slant on things. Scopes' text read;
"Although anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage, yet there is an immense mental gap between monkey and man … . At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (pp. 195–196)
“… if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways of preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.” (pp. 263–265).
This was John Scopes' textbook. Not in the sense that Scopes actually used the text, for as noted, the case was an engineered case. Scopes never taught evolution per se. However, this was the text that the trial was about, the basis, the at root document of the Scopes Trial. The charge was that John Scopes had used this text, HUNTER'S CIVIC BIOLOGY, the racist, white supremist text that featured an evolutionary slant on things. Clarence Darrow was defending Scopes and Scopes' alleged use of this very bizarre text in a Tennessee classroom.
Interesting is it not? So much of what passes for evolution's mainstream doctrine is more rooted in sociology, religion. metaphysics than it is in "science" per se, whatever science may be.
Given evolution's mainstream presentation of "our making" by way of a purposeless, unintentional, mindless process, one can only shrug his/her shoulders and say, "Yep, guess they do teach religion in the schools these days......."
One fact is that John Scopes, the accused in the famous 1925 Tennessee trial, to the best of the knowledge of most serious historians who studied and study the trial and events leading up to it, believe Scopes NEVER ACTUALLY TAUGHT EVOLUTION in the classroom. It was not subject matter that he himself addressed with his students.
Additionally, the Biology textbook allegedly used by Scopes, and so in effect the text so vehemently supported by the ACLU, the group most responsible for engineering the trial, was HUNTER'S CIVIC BIOLOGY, a text featuring a decidedly racist, white supremist slant on things. Scopes' text read;
"Although anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage, yet there is an immense mental gap between monkey and man … . At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (pp. 195–196)
“… if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways of preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.” (pp. 263–265).
This was John Scopes' textbook. Not in the sense that Scopes actually used the text, for as noted, the case was an engineered case. Scopes never taught evolution per se. However, this was the text that the trial was about, the basis, the at root document of the Scopes Trial. The charge was that John Scopes had used this text, HUNTER'S CIVIC BIOLOGY, the racist, white supremist text that featured an evolutionary slant on things. Clarence Darrow was defending Scopes and Scopes' alleged use of this very bizarre text in a Tennessee classroom.
Interesting is it not? So much of what passes for evolution's mainstream doctrine is more rooted in sociology, religion. metaphysics than it is in "science" per se, whatever science may be.
Given evolution's mainstream presentation of "our making" by way of a purposeless, unintentional, mindless process, one can only shrug his/her shoulders and say, "Yep, guess they do teach religion in the schools these days......."
Last edited:
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Please cite reliable sources, please.
He actually is. He gave the name and page numbers. Just no hotlink.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hunt195.htm
Edit: Well, it only goes from 192-196 on this site.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
The HUNTER'S CIVIC BILOLOGY text speaks for itself, those are direct quotes.....
The HUNTER'S CIVIC BIOLOGY text speaks for itself, those are direct quotes.....
As for the business of Scopes more likely than not never having taught evolution, this is very old news. One can Google Scopes', Scopes' Trial with various tags and find a ton of stuff that supports this. I am an atheist myself, so tend to not go so much for the religious slant, but here is not a bad reference from "Creation Ministries", just out of fairness to them. After all, they are "correct" on this important point.
http://creation.com/the-scopes-monkey-trial-80-years-later
I first came to know the fact that Scopes was a substitute teacher who may or may NOT have taught evolution in any formal sense when I first read Phillip Johnson's now rather famous, AND simultaneously infamous, DARWIN ON TRIAL, when that book first came out. The book was published in December 1993. Again, not one to see eye to eye with Johnson on many things, his emphasis on "evolution as a cultural theme" and not as science is very much on target, accurate as all get out, and given this emphasis, I would suggest Johnson's book is one of the best, if not THE BEST book written on the subject of evolution in the last 25 years, hands down really. The man has a ton of insight.
The HUNTER'S CIVIC BIOLOGY text speaks for itself, those are direct quotes.....
As for the business of Scopes more likely than not never having taught evolution, this is very old news. One can Google Scopes', Scopes' Trial with various tags and find a ton of stuff that supports this. I am an atheist myself, so tend to not go so much for the religious slant, but here is not a bad reference from "Creation Ministries", just out of fairness to them. After all, they are "correct" on this important point.
http://creation.com/the-scopes-monkey-trial-80-years-later
I first came to know the fact that Scopes was a substitute teacher who may or may NOT have taught evolution in any formal sense when I first read Phillip Johnson's now rather famous, AND simultaneously infamous, DARWIN ON TRIAL, when that book first came out. The book was published in December 1993. Again, not one to see eye to eye with Johnson on many things, his emphasis on "evolution as a cultural theme" and not as science is very much on target, accurate as all get out, and given this emphasis, I would suggest Johnson's book is one of the best, if not THE BEST book written on the subject of evolution in the last 25 years, hands down really. The man has a ton of insight.
Last edited:
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Indeed he has. My post was the result of misreading Patrick's post and a knee-jerk reaction.
But what he says here does not follow at all from what he has related to us.
And we get the tired old evolution as faith line. Odd stuff from someone who has said he accepts the idea.
They aren't about evolution, they may or may not be true about the teaching of evolution in the Deep South in the 1920's.
This is the act that Scopes was prosecuted under.
If someone was prosecuted under that act, it had to be "for a story that denied "divine creation"
But IANAL
So you're still going on the assumption that you can discuss the popular idea of evolution as though it were the scientific theory. I thought you and I had already discussed this. Of course, you refused to admit being wrong about, well, ANYTHING in the last thread we spoke in, so I doubt you'll remember it.Patrick1000 said:
Here's the thing: "what passes for evolution's mainstream doctrine" has only a superficial resemblance to what the actual modern theory of evolution states. And you yourself provide the evidence for this--you're citing a 1920s court case and you demanded that I pretend I was in the 1960s at one point. Neither is really relevant to the modern theory of evolution.
What is the relevance here? In what way is the 1925 trial relevant for evolution, and if Scopes did not teach evolution, why bring it up at all?
No, I do not find it interesting at all. I fail to see that modern evolution is rooted in sociology, religion and metaphysics because some person 1925 may, or may not be charged with this. I think it is fair to call this a straw man!
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
You were swayed by an idiot? Color me shocked -.-
Although I'm glad you finally mentioned a text like this because it gives a lot of insight to the materials you parrot and why you have such a graven misunderstanding of evolution. I feel like I understand you a little better.
Last edited: