Texas EduBoard won't put creationism in textbooks, after all

[Conscentia]

Mathematics. Another thing you don't understand.

Okay, you didn't understand. I'm either very bad at explaining, because I put too much information for you to grasp in a few sentences - or what you just said was a joke.

I think you're confusing the symbols with the quantities.

[Hurdegaryp]

Okay, you didn't understand. I'm either very bad at explaining, because I put too much information for you to grasp in a few sentences - or what you just said was a joke.

I think you're confusing the symbols with the quantities.

That's what you get when you deny science: everything becomes a bloody mess.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Mathematics. Another thing you don't understand.

Okay, you didn't understand. I'm either very bad at explaining, because I put too much (or too little) information for you to grasp in a few sentences - or what you just said was a joke.

What you don't seem to understand is that it's still the same concept. 3 as a number represents a concept, and 6 another concept, and the fact that 3 + 3 = 6 is simply part of how a system works. Certainly in some other planet they could have 3 + 3 = 8, but in that case it's simply that the concepts behind the numbers have changed, not that the underlying logic of mathematics has literally shifted. Whether it's 3, 6, or 8, the logic behind mathematics is still the same.

[Lydenburg]

Frankly, considering the overwhelming evidence, I think it's a damn shame that it the Texas Board of Education actually spent three whole months seriously considering this, instead of throwing out this proposal as soon as it reached their desks. However, it's good to see that it ultimately failed, and we won't be seeing children taught a religious creation myth as science in Texas, or even worse, across the United States. This is a huge relief to those of us who care about quality education and the separation of religion and science.

But see, creationists don't see the separation of their beliefs and science as being the problem. They see the separation of their beliefs and evolution as being the problem, hey?

Don't throw bricks at my head with all your "science = evolution" ratshit, NSG. Merely pointing out where I think their thought process diverges from about 85% of ours. I don't need a reactionary audience to-day.

[Pandeeria]

Frankly, considering the overwhelming evidence, I think it's a damn shame that it the Texas Board of Education actually spent three whole months seriously considering this, instead of throwing out this proposal as soon as it reached their desks. However, it's good to see that it ultimately failed, and we won't be seeing children taught a religious creation myth as science in Texas, or even worse, across the United States. This is a huge relief to those of us who care about quality education and the separation of religion and science.

But see, creationists don't see the separation of their beliefs and science as being the problem. They see the separation of their beliefs and evolution as being the problem, hey?

Don't throw bricks at my head with all your "science = evolution" ratshit, NSG. Merely pointing out where I think their thought process diverges from about 85% of ours. I don't need a reactionary audience to-day.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's just their religious beliefs and our culture in style, hence the anti-LGBT and anti-Abortion crowd.

[Hurdegaryp]

Don't throw bricks at my head with all your "science = evolution" ratshit, NSG. Merely pointing out where I think their thought process diverges from about 85% of ours. I don't need a reactionary audience to-day.

Look, if all creationists would simply refrain from making use of the many blessings of modern medical knowledge, a branch of science closely related to evolutionary biology, this whole thing would solve itself quite efficiently within a few decades time.

[Ifreann]

Mathematics. Another thing you don't understand.

Okay, you didn't understand. I'm either very bad at explaining, because I put too much (or too little) information for you to grasp in a few sentences - or what you just said was a joke.

I understand perfectly. You're trying to argue some kind of gap you can squeeze your God creationism into. Some element of doubt to justify your opposition to evolution, as though that proves the worth of creationism.

But quite aside from that, you just obviously don't understand maths. 2 + 2 = 4 is invariably true in base 10, which is the base we use so ubiquitously that we don't make a note of it. If some people in some place use a system wherein 3 + 3 = 8, that has no bearing on the factuality of 2 + 2 = 4.

[Northwest Slobovia]

No, the earth was created by accident by the wizards.

I've always liked one of the African creation myths - a god vomited up the Earth.

I prefer the Mesopotamian one, where Enki filled the Tirgris and Euphrates by a cosmic act of masturbation. As it is said, if Enki invented anything better than sex, He kept it for Himself.

[Magna Libero]

And they'd be wrong. Two plus two is self evidently four.

Not necessarily in all bases
But then it is simply a matter of conversion. The actual math would be the same.

I think you understood that.

2+2=5 could be used in a context, where 5 means 4 in our system, and 2 means 2 etc. Take Cyrillic letters as an example. Russians write CCCP, in Cyrillic alphabet, while it should be said as SSSR. Those two are different systems.

Um, not sure if this has been off-topic but I sense it has..,

[Hurdegaryp]

I've always liked one of the African creation myths - a god vomited up the Earth.

I prefer the Mesopotamian one, where Enki filled the Tirgris and Euphrates by a cosmic act of masturbation. As it is said, if Enki invented anything better than sex, He kept it for Himself.

Religion and mythology tends not to be PG-13 at all. Maybe the moderators should do something about it.

[Regnum Dominae]

Not necessarily in all bases
But then it is simply a matter of conversion. The actual math would be the same.

I think you understood that.

2+2=5 could be used in a context, where 5 means 4 in our system, and 2 means 2 etc. Take Cyrillic letters as an example. Russians write CCCP, in Cyrillic alphabet, while it should be said as SSSR. Those two are different systems.

Um, not sure if this has been off-topic but I sense it has..,

All you're saying is that different writing systems exist. We know that.

And none of this in any way makes evolution false.

[Pandeeria]

Not necessarily in all bases
But then it is simply a matter of conversion. The actual math would be the same.

I think you understood that.

2+2=5 could be used in a context, where 5 means 4 in our system, and 2 means 2 etc. Take Cyrillic letters as an example. Russians write CCCP, in Cyrillic alphabet, while it should be said as SSSR. Those two are different systems.

Um, not sure if this has been off-topic but I sense it has..,

In the actual math itself, that would be the same.

That's where creationism is different. It is intrinsically incorrect like 3 + 3 = 10 inside our modern context.

[The Alma Mater]

Frankly, considering the overwhelming evidence, I think it's a damn shame that it the Texas Board of Education actually spent three whole months seriously considering this, instead of throwing out this proposal as soon as it reached their desks. However, it's good to see that it ultimately failed, and we won't be seeing children taught a religious creation myth as science in Texas, or even worse, across the United States. This is a huge relief to those of us who care about quality education and the separation of religion and science.

But see, creationists don't see the separation of their beliefs and science as being the problem. They see the separation of their beliefs and evolution as being the problem, hey?

Don't throw bricks at my head with all your "science = evolution" ratshit, NSG. Merely pointing out where I think their thought process diverges from about 85% of ours. I don't need a reactionary audience to-day.

True. For some reason many see science as a collection of little islands with no overlap whatsoever. Even within disciplines.
For instance, the physics that gives us microwaves, cdplayers and X-ray machines is not perceived to be in any way connected to the physics that is used to measure the age of the earth and tells us it is "slightly" over 6000 years old. It is simply seen as two completely seperate things.. which of course it is not. Alternative physics proposed by creationists that "explains" the difference in agemeasurements therefor tends to break other things - for instance by implying that the existence of a cdplayer is theoretically impossible.. but they do not realise that. The things are simply completely seperated in their minds.

In a more general example, they are happy to use modern medicine.. without questioning the medicine is based on (and was tested by) consequences of evolutionary biology. Because the link between the two is simply not perceived.

It is both fascinating and scary.

[Pandeeria]

I prefer the Mesopotamian one, where Enki filled the Tirgris and Euphrates by a cosmic act of masturbation. As it is said, if Enki invented anything better than sex, He kept it for Himself.

Religion and mythology tends not to be PG-13 at all. Maybe the moderators should do something about it.

The mods should change history for everything to be PG-13 for NSG. *nods*

[Hurdegaryp]

For instance, the physics that gives us microwaves, cdplayers and X-ray machines is not perceived to be in any way connected to the physics that is used to measure the age of the earth and tells us it is "slightly" over 6000 years old. It is simply seen as two completely seperate things.. which of course it is not. Alternative physics proposed by creationists that "explains" the difference in agemeasurements therefor tends to break other things - for instance by implying that the existence of a cdplayer is theoretically impossible.. but they do not realise that. The things are simply completely seperated in their minds.

In a more general example, they are happy to use modern medicine.. without questioning the medicine is based on (and was tested by) consequences of evolutionary biology. Because the link between the two is simply not perceived.

It is both fascinating and scary.

The word you're seeking is hypocrisy. You cannot have fundamentalism without heavy doses of utterly corrupt hypocrisy.

[European Socialist Republic]

Don't throw bricks at my head with all your "science = evolution" ratshit, NSG. Merely pointing out where I think their thought process diverges from about 85% of ours. I don't need a reactionary audience to-day.

Look, if all creationists would simply refrain from making use of the many blessings of modern medical knowledge, a branch of science closely related to evolutionary biology, this whole thing would solve itself quite efficiently within a few decades time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=140g0qmZZ24

[The Emerald Legion]

But see, creationists don't see the separation of their beliefs and science as being the problem. They see the separation of their beliefs and evolution as being the problem, hey?

Don't throw bricks at my head with all your "science = evolution" ratshit, NSG. Merely pointing out where I think their thought process diverges from about 85% of ours. I don't need a reactionary audience to-day.

True. For some reason many see science as a collection of little islands with no overlap whatsoever. Even within disciplines.
For instance, the physics that gives us microwaves, cdplayers and X-ray machines is not perceived to be in any way connected to the physics that is used to measure the age of the earth and tells us it is "slightly" over 6000 years old. It is simply seen as two completely seperate things.. which of course it is not. Alternative physics proposed by creationists that "explains" the difference in agemeasurements therefor tends to break other things - for instance by implying that the existence of a cdplayer is theoretically impossible.. but they do not realise that. The things are simply completely seperated in their minds.

In a more general example, they are happy to use modern medicine.. without questioning the medicine is based on (and was tested by) consequences of evolutionary biology. Because the link between the two is simply not perceived.

It is both fascinating and scary.

Sweet Omnissiah... they really are Unmada. I've made that joke a few times... but...

[The Alma Mater]

For instance, the physics that gives us microwaves, cdplayers and X-ray machines is not perceived to be in any way connected to the physics that is used to measure the age of the earth and tells us it is "slightly" over 6000 years old. It is simply seen as two completely seperate things.. which of course it is not. Alternative physics proposed by creationists that "explains" the difference in agemeasurements therefor tends to break other things - for instance by implying that the existence of a cdplayer is theoretically impossible.. but they do not realise that. The things are simply completely seperated in their minds.

In a more general example, they are happy to use modern medicine.. without questioning the medicine is based on (and was tested by) consequences of evolutionary biology. Because the link between the two is simply not perceived.

It is both fascinating and scary.

The word you're seeking is hypocrisy. You cannot have fundamentalism without heavy doses of utterly corrupt hypocrisy.

I think "cognitive dissonance" is better. For the relevantly educated creationists at least.
Of course, quite a significant number of people (creationist or not) do not understand science anyway; so that they do not see the connections that make creationism so utterly silly is not due to a form of hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance or whatever.. but simply ignorance.

[Gauthier]

It's amusing people still insist the Bible is the literal truth and the basis of everything scientific.

And then you have to ask yourself, would you take the Bible as literal truth if it were being written today on the Internet?

[Hurdegaryp]

The word you're seeking is hypocrisy. You cannot have fundamentalism without heavy doses of utterly corrupt hypocrisy.

I think "cognitive dissonance" is better. For the relevantly educated creationists at least.
Of course, quite a significant number of people (creationist or not) do not understand science anyway; so that they do not see the connections that make creationism so utterly silly is not due to a form of hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance or whatever.. but simply ignorance.

Are you entirely sure that "cognitive dissonance" is not actually a fancy way to say that some people are just hypocrites to the very core of their being?

[Zonolia]

Oh my gawd...my state...it's...it's actually in NSG and not being bashed on cause we did something good for once...woohoo!!!

[Gauthier]

Oh my gawd...my state...it's...it's actually in NSG and not being bashed on cause we did something good for once...woohoo!!!

shhhhhh... PRick erry and Greg Abbott might hear you and make up for that slip.

[The Alma Mater]

I think "cognitive dissonance" is better. For the relevantly educated creationists at least.
Of course, quite a significant number of people (creationist or not) do not understand science anyway; so that they do not see the connections that make creationism so utterly silly is not due to a form of hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance or whatever.. but simply ignorance.

Are you entirely sure that "cognitive dissonance" is not actually a fancy way to say that some people are just hypocrites to the very core of their being?

The key difference is that they do not do it on purpose

[With Teeth]

Ugh, just ugh. But this is what I think of evolution.
http://bloviatingzeppelin.net/wp-conten ... theism.jpg

The evidence disagrees with you.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

Have you heard of debating?

[Geilinor]

I think you understood that.

2+2=5 could be used in a context, where 5 means 4 in our system, and 2 means 2 etc. Take Cyrillic letters as an example. Russians write CCCP, in Cyrillic alphabet, while it should be said as SSSR. Those two are different systems.

Um, not sure if this has been off-topic but I sense it has..,

In the actual math itself, that would be the same.

That's where creationism is different. It is intrinsically incorrect like 3 + 3 = 10 inside our modern context.

This^. It would be like people claiming "3 + 3 = 33" according to their religion.