[youtube]JVRsWAjvQSg[/youtube]
This is a very interesting discussion on the subject of Intelligent Design by Brown University’s Kenneth Miller. It’s just under two hours long, and if you have the time I highly recommend watching it. There is even a mention of Pastafarianism at around 90 minutes.
@Wench Lisa
Glad to have you join up. There is not an awful ‘criss-cross’ between the threads here and the forum. At some stage in the chat room even Bobby H said he doesn’t visit it much. Some of the CoFSM regulars who visited there also came back with the opinion that the unmoderated threads here are probably the best part of the FSM website experience (and the chat room of course once that is back up).
@ Wench Lisa - Welcome! *Waves back* I’ve only been to the forums once, to see what they are like. I have difficulty following the format, so I stick with this part of the site.
@ DPG - RAmen! You said it very well.
@Wench Nikkiee: yeah, sure, why not make it British time. In Australia they celebrate Christmas in summer, so why not having the US eat dinner at midnight? But I would prefer the metric way Alchemist suggested… I hate it having to calculate with 60min/h, 24h/d and then the days of the month! Always changing… how stupid is that! Why did the holy Noodlieness let that happen????
Enya, he was probably a bit tipsy at the time.Too much beer.
Err….having some in depth thought processes here at mo. Not at anyone in particular…
Why are we here this site?
Hi RDPK :)))
Due to recent circumstances….having some random thought processes here. It’s a “dealing with boring ineffective contributor* people problem. Ho Hum!! Yawn :(
And RAmen
Hellooo…hello…just shout if you can hear me? I’ve have become comfortably numb…
Think it’s a Floyd thing :p
Any warriors out there??? Other than the usual suspects??? :))
I can here you Nikkiee, I think you’re a bit tipsy as well :)
Nobody here but us bilge rats.
.
I think therefore I am.
If I think not, then am I not?
I think not.
-OEJ, Ship’s Navigator
To speak with the bruces of Monthy Python:
The philosophers song:
I drink therefore I am.
Thank FSM the site’s back up. I was worried I might have to learn scientology - although I suspect I might pop back to that site later on. The image of John frantically red flagging posts brings me out all tingly :)
.
Nickiee - thanks for the link re. GMT - they were pretty nice to the Daily Telegraph - most people I know call it “That Fascist Rag” - if they had their way the entire world would be wearing tweed and doffing our cap to the aristocracy.
There would be “little match girls” at the corner of every street and “shoe shine boys” to greet you with a cheery “polish yer shoes govn’r? - cor an ‘ole penny! Gawd bless ya sir! Me an me sisters can eat like royalty for a month now”
The good old days!
.
Enya - re decimalisation of time. Hell yeah, the calculation side - what a nightmare! I remember that (vaguely) from A’Level Physics.
.
What would we call the ten days of the week though? I’ll propose a variation on Latin numbers;
Unday, Dosday(holiday), DosdayII (likewise), DosdayIII (ditto), DosdayIV(guess), Sexday (self-explanatory), SexdayII, TalkLikeAPirateDay, Friday(for tradition - also a holiday) and Decday (for fighting and drinking, likewise a holiday)
I would say, we make it one workday following one holiday, so there will be still 5 work days but you can go out late every other day. But the II’s are too complicated, let’s make it (… u-oh I always sucked in Latin!!) Unday, Dudeday (free), Triday, Quadday (free), Cincday, Sexday (fine with me), what was seven again? Octday, Nudeday (!) and Decay… or whatever…. and just 10 month, that’s enough
hahaha - seven would be septday - perhaps change it to septicday - where we all throw a sickie :)
@Red DutchPasta Kidd Mar 30th, 2007 at 2:39 am
“I can here you Nikkiee, I think you’re a bit tipsy as well :)”
.
Think I was too RDPK :)
Better now…had some more drinks :)))
We had a visit to our campus last night by a speaker associated with Answers in Genesis. I’ve posted my response on my blog at http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/
must have been interesting (!). I know it is preaching to the choir, but the Bible is clearly proofed wrong. Alone the simple fact that the Y-chromosome is a degenerated X-chromosone proofs that male developed out of female and not vice versa. How does those morons explain that??? And what about the 4 different mitochondrial RNAs? Then there must have been 3 Eves.
@James Mar 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“speaker associated with Answers in Genesis.”
.
Ooooh…my favourite meal :)))
Grrrr…
“Alone the simple fact that the Y-chromosome is a degenerated X-chromosone proofs that male developed out of female and not vice versa.”
.
I’m not a feminist but do study molec bio…pass on that one :)))))
@Thumper, and anyone else who wants a summary of the 2 hours:
You requested a one paragraph summary of the lecture. Miller proved that scientists are far more self-critical than intelligent design theorists, but that despite scientists’ skepticism about evolution, fossils have always provided the required data to show evolutionary theory to be accurate. Conversely, ID theorists, instead of focusing objective peer review, fossil records, and DNA, focus on political sway and persuasion. He remarked that ID, although they claim it is secular and scientific, is supported mostly by religious people. He quoted Behe (sp?) himself as saying that in order to accept ID as science you would have to also accept astrology, phrenology, magic, and witchcraft based theories as well. Miller disproved irreducible complexity, a central tenet to ID. He even proved that Pandas and People was not actually an ID textbook, but a Creationism textbook in disguise. He showed what has been obvious from the start: that ID is a form of creationism and that if teaching creationism in public school science classes is unconstitutional than so is teaching ID in those same classes.
.
Personally, after watching that lecture I’m not sure if I want ID taught in public schools in science classes. I know that it’s pseudo-scientific nonsense, and that it could harm the education of a lot of people, but I feel that it might be worth it in the long run when we get to hear fundies make the following (deliciously ironic) argument: “Witchcraft based theories of the origin of humanity are positively insulting when taught in science classrooms. Science is about observable evidence, natural phenomena, and experiments intended to verify hypotheses. No one can observe magic, and no one can design an experiment intended to verify the origin of the human race with witchcraft. Most importantly, magic is a supernatural explanation of events. Witchcraft simply isn’t scientific. These witchcraft-based theories are pseudoscientific, ludicrous, and no more than deceitful attempts to put the Wicca religion in places it doesn’t belong. You shouldn’t teach witchcraft in our classrooms and we won’t teach our scientific theories in your covens!”
.
(For those who can’t take a joke, I was kidding. I don’t want ID taught in schools, although I DO think it would be very funny to hear a fundie recite our arguments to keep such theories out of public schools.)
.
-Avatar of Reason
@Thumper, and anyone else who wants a summary of the 2 hours:
You requested a one paragraph summary of the lecture. Miller proved that scientists are far more self-critical than intelligent design theorists, but that despite scientists’ skepticism about evolution, fossils have always provided the required data to show evolutionary theory to be accurate. Conversely, ID theorists, instead of focusing objective peer review, fossil records, and DNA, focus on political sway and persuasion. He remarked that ID, although they claim it is secular and scientific, is supported mostly by religious people. He quoted Behe (sp?) himself as saying that in order to accept ID as science you would have to also accept astrology, phrenology, magic, and witchcraft based theories as well. Miller disproved irreducible complexity, a central tenet to ID. He even proved that Pandas and People was not actually an ID textbook, but a Creationism textbook in disguise. He showed what has been obvious from the start: that ID is a form of creationism and that if teaching creationism in public school science classes is unconstitutional than so is teaching ID in those same classes.
.
Personally, after watching that lecture I’m not sure if I want ID taught in public schools in science classes. I know that it’s pseudo-scientific nonsense, and that it could harm the education of a lot of people, but I feel that it might be worth it in the long run when we get to hear fundies make the following (deliciously ironic) argument: “Witchcraft based theories of the origin of humanity are positively insulting when taught in science classrooms. Science is about observable evidence, natural phenomena, and experiments intended to verify hypotheses. No one can observe magic, and no one can design an experiment intended to verify the origin of the human race with witchcraft. Most importantly, magic is a supernatural explanation of events. Witchcraft simply isn’t scientific. These witchcraft-based theories are pseudoscientific, ludicrous, and no more than deceitful attempts to put the Wicca religion in places it doesn’t belong. You shouldn’t teach witchcraft in our classrooms and we won’t teach our scientific theories in your covens!”
.
For those who can’t take a joke, I was kidding. I don’t want ID taught in schools, although I DO think it would be very funny to hear a fundie recite our arguments to keep such theories out of public schools.
.
-Avatar of Reason
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
