Thread: Tennessee: Nearly as stupid today as in 1925

Originally Posted by Bunion

If Evolution is such solidly settled science, why are you so threatened by discussion and debate?

You sound like the same TEA party freaks that cause you so much heartburn.

We're talking about Tennessee, and since I joined the discussion you can add West Virginia, can a bunch of hicks and hillbillies be expected to debate this and come to the correct conclusion?

Originally Posted by hutash

I am all for teaching alternatives, but the alternative have to have some reasonable validity.

I tend to agree, but who determines the validity?

I don't think I agree that creationism should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution in a public school. Teaching a class in religious studies that discusses christianity and its core beliefs in creationism is one thing. Teaching it as a valid scientifically vetted theory is quite another.

The whole sep. of church and state thing (at a state level gov't inst.) seems to be stepped all over with this being taught as a class.

@ PNWbrit;

I would suggest that maybe you have the tiniest bit of respect for people who have beliefs that don't mirror yours.

Your way of thinking might have just a little bit to do with the divisions tearing this country apart.

Lighten up a little there Francis

There isn't any science whatsoever behind intelligent design or creationism, which is why it doesn't belong in a science class. For example:

* Supporters of intelligent design exploit the use of the word "theory" in "theory of evolution" as a basis for criticism.
* In the context of science, "theory" means "model". It doesn't mean "as yet unproven" or "speculative".
* There are mountains of evidence in favour of evolution as the model that best explains the origins of the species.
* Intelligent design boils down to "this is too complex to have evolved on its own".
* When scientists don't understand how something works they say "we don't understand how it works".
* When supporters of intelligent design don't understand how something works they say "Aha! This must have been designed by some mysterious force."
* The "arguments" behind intelligent design are such an utter crock of shit that they don't even pass the common sense test.

Supporters of intelligent design ignore very basic science such as:

* The existing of vestigial leg bones in cetaceans and the coccyx in humans.
* Why would you design an organism with vestigial parts?
* "Inconvenient truths" about gene conservation in organisms.
* The ability for organisms to function without important genes.
* The ability for organisms to function with several abnormalities in the mitotic spindle.
* Their arguments exploit "so called" gaps in the fossil record while ignoring basic science such as punctuated equilibrium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Were living systems designed? How about we take a quick glance at the science of the replisome?

* The replisome is a collection of intra-cellular factors that replicate our DNA. ( clamp, clamp loader, single strand binding factors, helicase, topoisomerase, DNA polymerase I, DNA polymerase III, ligase, primase, etc. ).
* The replisome is a classic case of "farmhouse architecture" found all over biology.
* Helicase unwinds the double helix by melting the hydrogen bonds between the base pairs.
* This causes dangerous tangles in the DNA that have to be fixed by a collection of factors called topoisomerases.
* Not to mention, the single strand exposed in the replication bubble is likely to self-anneal, which requires another set of factors ( single strand binding factors in prokaryotes or RPA in eukaryotes ).
* The leading strand is replicated 5' to 3'.
* The lagging strand is replicated 5' to 3', but since it is oriented 'backwards", the factors that replicate the lagging strand must undergo complex conformational changes.
* The lagging strand has to be replicated in separate parts called Okazaki fragments. Factors such as DNA polymerase I have to go clean up the RNA primers and re-ligate the DNA at the nicks in the backbone.
* A "designer" could do a much better job at making the protein the machinery that replicates DNA.
* For example: why not use a purely conservative model and make DNA replication entirely self-contained?
* Unwinding the DNA for duplication creates tonnes of serious problems and increases chances for serious errors.
* So, why not make a single molecular machine that replicates the DNA in duplex form and doesn't require unwinding?
* You can study DNA polymerase III if you want to learn about the chemistry of DNA replication and error correction.
* DNA polymerase III has two units: polymerisation and 3'-5' exonuclease error correction.
* Replication errors such as T-G pairing distort the position of magnesium ions in the polymerisation unit.
* This causes the rate of the polymerisation reaction to slow down.
* The error correction reaction in the 3'-5' exonuclease overtakes the polymerisation reaction and chews back along the strand, removing bases until the error is fixed.
* At that point, the chemistry of the polymerisation unit returns to normal and replication continues.
* But this just begs the question: if this was designed, why use methods that have any chance of error at all?
* If this isn't enough, you can study other bizarre phenomena such as chromosome condensation.

Instead of acknowledging basic science, supporters of intelligent design cite a lot of bullshit such as "irreducible complexity". Replisome dynamics were, according to the standards set forth by intelligent design, "irreducibly complex"... at least until Beese and Johnson crystalized all 12 base pair mismatches and proved that base pair mismatches distorted the chemistry of the polymerisation unit - and as I discussed above these distortions allow for DNA repair ( This work was published in Cell, 2004. ). Not irreducibly complex after all.

A supporter of intelligent design looks at a camera and says "that's magic". A scientist says, "actually, it's just physics".

It's not a case of competing theories. Not at all.

Originally Posted by Bunion

I would suggest that maybe you have the tiniest bit of respect for people who have beliefs that don't mirror yours.

You're wrong. I don't have the tiniest bit of respect for people's belief in creationism, ID, religion generally, astrology, unicorns, re-incarnation, thetans...... that they're Napoleon etc.

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Tectonics?

It is most gratifying that your enthusiasm for our planet continues unabated. And so, we would like to assure you that the guided missiles currently converging with your ship are part of a special service we extend to all of our most enthusiastic clients, and the fully-armed nuclear warheads are of course merely a courtesy detail. We look forward to your custom in future lives.

Originally it was drift, plate tectonics came after. It was thought the continents literally drifted until the plate theory gave a mechanism.

Magratheia is just a fairy story parents tell the kids when they want them to grow up to be accountants.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Do I?


If Evolution is such solidly settled science, why are you so threatened by discussion and debate?

You sound like the same TEA party freaks that cause you so much heartburn.

Because this is just a thinly veiled attempt to teach creationism. It is a waste of time and resources.

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Would you suggest then that a bill be passed to encourage the teaching of alternatives to ... let's say gravity, or electromagnetism?

Fuck! Magnets, how do they work?

Maybe if teachers didn't have to waste time with these issues they could teach how magnets work.

Originally Posted by hutash

^^^Because it is not science. Should we teach flat earth geography because enough stupid state senators got elected that want it?

Maybe they could have a class about comparing apples to oranges?

Originally Posted by hutash

Because this is just a thinly veiled attempt to teach creationism. It is a waste of time and resources.

Actually it's because this is just a thinly veiled attempt to teach..... religion. And only one type of religion in-particular.

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Actually it's because this is just a thinly veiled attempt to teach..... religion. And only one type of religion in-particular.

Well then.... one simple solution. Don't live in Tennessee. And if some people choose to believe in Faerie Tales maybe just cut them some slack, nod politely and STFU?

And BTW, there is really only one type of religion, the names get changed to confuse the masses but it really is just one belief system with a bunch of different names and addresses.

Originally Posted by Bunion

nod politely and STFU?

If your god or any other wants me to shut the fuck up he can do the bolt of lightning or pillar of salt shit on me....

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

If your god or any other wants me to shut the fuck up he can do the bolt of lightning or pillar of salt shit on me....

Sorry I don't have a God and am by definition an Atheist.

I just believe in the adage, Live and let Live.

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

There isn't any science whatsoever behind intelligent design or creationism, which is why it doesn't belong in a science class. For example:

* Supporters of intelligent design exploit the use of the word "theory" in "theory of evolution" as a basis for criticism.
* In the context of science, "theory" means "model". It doesn't mean "as yet unproven" or "speculative".
* There are mountains of evidence in favour of evolution as the model that best explains the origins of the species.
* Intelligent design boils down to "this is too complex to have evolved on its own".
* When scientists don't understand how something works they say "we don't understand how it works".
* When supporters of intelligent design don't understand how something works they say "Aha! This must have been designed by some mysterious force."
* The "arguments" behind intelligent design are such an utter crock of shit that they don't even pass the common sense test.

Supporters of intelligent design ignore very basic science such as:

* The existing of vestigial leg bones in cetaceans and the coccyx in humans.
* Why would you design an organism with vestigial parts?
* "Inconvenient truths" about gene conservation in organisms.
* The ability for organisms to function without important genes.
* The ability for organisms to function with several abnormalities in the mitotic spindle.
* Their arguments exploit "so called" gaps in the fossil record while ignoring basic science such as punctuated equilibrium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Were living systems designed? How about we take a quick glance at the science of the replisome?

* The replisome is a collection of intra-cellular factors that replicate our DNA. ( clamp, clamp loader, single strand binding factors, helicase, topoisomerase, DNA polymerase I, DNA polymerase III, ligase, primase, etc. ).
* The replisome is a classic case of "farmhouse architecture" found all over biology.
* Helicase unwinds the double helix by melting the hydrogen bonds between the base pairs.
* This causes dangerous tangles in the DNA that have to be fixed by a collection of factors called topoisomerases.
* Not to mention, the single strand exposed in the replication bubble is likely to self-anneal, which requires another set of factors ( single strand binding factors in prokaryotes or RPA in eukaryotes ).
* The leading strand is replicated 5' to 3'.
* The lagging strand is replicated 5' to 3', but since it is oriented 'backwards", the factors that replicate the lagging strand must undergo complex conformational changes.
* The lagging strand has to be replicated in separate parts called Okazaki fragments. Factors such as DNA polymerase I have to go clean up the RNA primers and re-ligate the DNA at the nicks in the backbone.
* A "designer" could do a much better job at making the protein the machinery that replicates DNA.
* For example: why not use a purely conservative model and make DNA replication entirely self-contained?
* Unwinding the DNA for duplication creates tonnes of serious problems and increases chances for serious errors.
* So, why not make a single molecular machine that replicates the DNA in duplex form and doesn't require unwinding?
* You can study DNA polymerase III if you want to learn about the chemistry of DNA replication and error correction.
* DNA polymerase III has two units: polymerisation and 3'-5' exonuclease error correction.
* Replication errors such as T-G pairing distort the position of magnesium ions in the polymerisation unit.
* This causes the rate of the polymerisation reaction to slow down.
* The error correction reaction in the 3'-5' exonuclease overtakes the polymerisation reaction and chews back along the strand, removing bases until the error is fixed.
* At that point, the chemistry of the polymerisation unit returns to normal and replication continues.
* But this just begs the question: if this was designed, why use methods that have any chance of error at all?
* If this isn't enough, you can study other bizarre phenomena such as chromosome condensation.

Instead of acknowledging basic science, supporters of intelligent design cite a lot of bullshit such as "irreducible complexity". Replisome dynamics were, according to the standards set forth by intelligent design, "irreducibly complex"... at least until Beese and Johnson crystalized all 12 base pair mismatches and proved that base pair mismatches distorted the chemistry of the polymerisation unit - and as I discussed above these distortions allow for DNA repair ( This work was published in Cell, 2004. ). Not irreducibly complex after all.

A supporter of intelligent design looks at a camera and says "that's magic". A scientist says, "actually, it's just physics".

It's not a case of competing theories. Not at all.

It would be pretty easy for a guy with the intelligence to create the universe to do all that shit just to fuck with guys like you.
Someone has to go to hell. It's all a big test.

Originally Posted by Bunion

I just believe in the adage, Live and let Live.

Exactly, let the religious nutters live in their churches and let the science teachers teach science. This really shouldn't be an issue. There is a time and place for both. The state should leave them to their proper places.

America has fallen behind the rest of the first world in math and science scores, and education in general. Teaching religion as science will help that how?

This isn't a live and let live situation, its about building a solid foundation and understanding of scientific principles in our young people instead of filling their heads with fairy tales and telling them that religion is an acceptable basis for a scientific theory.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

It would be pretty easy for a guy with the intelligence to create the universe to do all that shit just to fuck with guys like you.
Someone has to go to hell. It's all a big test.

Yes, of course. A guy with the intelligence and power to create the universe definitely thought about fucking with guys like me when he made everything.

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

Yes, of course. A guy with the intelligence and power to create the universe definitely thought about fucking with guys like me when he made everything.

Now how can anyone argue with simple logic like that?

A guy sits in a room with a clipboard and tallies the results of fucking with Mike.

At the end of his life, Mike either goes to Heaven or Hell.

All based on the results from The Test.

There are hundreds of thousands of guys in tens of thousands rooms, all with clipboards and all tallying results and scoring The Test.

They are your God.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Now how can anyone argue with simple logic like that?

A guy sits in a room with a clipboard and tallies the results of fucking with Mike.

At the end of his life, Mike either goes to Heaven or Hell.

All based on the results from The Test.

There are hundreds of thousands of guys in tens of thousands rooms, all with clipboards and all tallying results and scoring The Test.

They are your God.

I wish I could "like" this post!

Sent from my Paranoid Android using TGR forums.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Well then.... one simple solution. Don't live in Tennessee. And if some people choose to believe in Faerie Tales maybe just cut them some slack, nod politely and STFU?

And BTW, there is really only one type of religion, the names get changed to confuse the masses but it really is just one belief system with a bunch of different names and addresses.

This is it. Really. 80 years from now who cares? We'll all be dead, you'll be in a box or like me scattered all over the top of your favorite mountain. cept for PNWbrit our pillar of salt.

I care, because even though 80 years from now I won't be here, my kids (or more likely grand kids will be.) i want to leave this world a little better place for having been here.

Originally Posted by hutash

I care, because even though 80 years from now I won't be here, my kids (or more likely grand kids will be.) i want to leave this world a little better place for having been here.

Maybe in your view, but there are a shit ton of people who do believe and who act out their lives based on their faith.

They try to also leave this world a better place so in effect they have the same goal as you.

Again, maybe just a little slack in what others choose to believe might be the uhhhh Christian thing to do.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Maybe in your view, but there are a shit ton of people who do believe and who act out their lives based on their faith.

They try to also leave this world a better place so in effect they have the same goal as you.

Again, maybe just a little slack in what others choose to believe might be the uhhhh Christian thing to do.

You sir are barking up the wrong tree with regards to cutting religion and esp. Christians a break here. might as well piss in the wind and enjoy the nice ammonia aroma.

And again teaching creationism in a public school as anything but a religious belief in a religious studies class should never happen.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Maybe in your view, but there are a shit ton of people who do believe and who act out their lives based on their faith.

They try to also leave this world a better place so in effect they have the same goal as you.

Again, maybe just a little slack in what others choose to believe might be the uhhhh Christian thing to do.

No doubt they do, just leave it in the church is all I/we are saying. People can believe what ever the fuck they want. While I, and apparently you, don't believe their fantasies, they are entitled to them, but they do not belong in public school, or in government, in any way shape of form. Even OSECS appears to agree with me on this

Originally Posted by Moeghoul

Don't they offer some kind comparative religion classes that study world religions? I don't have a problem with something like that. Why the christian nuts want to inject it into a science class makes no sense.

Exactly... Teach religion I don't care, in fact I feel understanding religion should be an important part of being educated in America today. However there is a fundamental difference between faith and science, and they need to be separated.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Do I?

Actually no, I am comfortable with the "THEORY" of evolution.

the·o·ry
   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

Even though just like others here may say when it comes to Creationism, there is no real, 100% incontrovertible proof.

From accompanying article bolded for context;

The Tennessee Senate approved a bill Monday that would encourage teachers and students to debate evolution in the classroom, setting aside complaints that the measure would drag the state back onto the battleground over the teaching of creationism.

Senators voted 24-8 to pass a bill that says schoolteachers cannot be punished for “helping students to understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories” taught in public schools.

The measure has drawn strong opposition from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Center for Science Education and the American Civil Liberties Union, which said it is cover for teachers who want to teach creationism or intelligent design. Supporters said the measure would give teachers more guidance to answer students’ questions about science.

If Evolution is such solidly settled science, why are you so threatened by discussion and debate?

You sound like the same TEA party freaks that cause you so much heartburn.

Fact: Organisms evolve

Poke a hole in my argument.