What's all this talk about the "facts" of macroevolution? It's a historical science. It took place in the past. It's more forensic than empirical. We look to the fossil record for evidence, not facts, and all evidence is open to interpretation. It should be debated in a court room, not a science lab
41 comments
It took place in the past and it takes place right now. Natural laws, anyone? You know: non-discriminating, unchangable, sometimes destructive laws?
Yada, yada...DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
Blah, blah...MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU KNOW IT!?
That is all.
So from this set of six sentences I can see John believes the following.
1) Forensic work is not empirical
I call fail on all levels.
It should be debated in a court room...
It was, and your side lost. The court determined that Intelligent Design is just the latest cover name for Creationism. Since Creationism is out and out religious in nature it is not legal to teach it in public schools. Maybe next time your team should take more care in re-editing old Creationist text books.
1 Evolution took place in the past, is taking place in the present and will continue to take place in the future.
2 The fossil record is evidence AND fact. Nor is the fossil record our only evidence for evolution.
3 Dover Trial, 'nuff said.
Evolution took place and is taking place. The facts say so.
Also, do we get to debate the Genesis creation stories (and the plural is not a typo) in the science lab?
Evidence is open to interpretation, but you have to have the correct assumptions to begin with. That's the difference between you and a scientist. Believe it or not, a scientist is trained to consider what assumptions s/he's making and test them if at all possible. You are not. You are given a set of assumptions and told they're the inerrant word of God, even if these assumptions aren't even in the book.
Why don't we start debating religion in the courtroom too?
"It should be debated in a court room, not a science lab "
We'll debate science in a courtroom if you'll debate your creation myth in a lab.
It should be debated in a court room, not a science lab
It was. You lost. See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
And that in the courtroom they'd bring in? Who else, but experts in the relative field, same battle, different location, you're STILL wrong
If you're making an argument, John, knowing the definitions of the words you use would be of immense help. Otherwise, you risk confirming to your audience that you are a pompous and ignorant git.
@Rat of Steel: "Mentioning the word "macroevolution" = automatic 5, automatic fail."
Perhaps you should tell the AAAS, who held a conference called "Macroevolution" in 1983, or Doug Erwin of the National Museum of Natural History, whose article "Macroevolution: Seeds of Diversity" appeared in the journal Science, in 2005. Actually, you'd better write to the editors of Science, PNAS, Nature, Cell and a couple of dozen other journals, since they regularly publish peer-reviewed papers using the term hence must have been infiltrated by creationist moles in deep cover.
"It's a historical science. It took place in the past. It's more forensic than empirical."
All experiments take place in the past, the trick is predicting the result before you see it.
And "forensic" means "relating to legal proceedings", hence "forensic science" is science pursued in aid of a legal end, "forensic dentistry" is identification of an individual through their teeth for investigative purposes, "forensic computing" is the analysis of information technology equipment for evidence in relation of a crime, etc.
But what the fuck is "forensic macroevolution"?
"Your honour, I put it to the jury that the accused did wilfully descend from a species of primitive hominid with a more upright stance so as to be able to strike the victim about the top of the head with a stick without needing to support himself upon his knuckles! This clearly indicates hundreds of thousands of years of planning and forethought went into this crime, hence we are calling for "Murder One"!"
[It should be debated in a court room, not a science lab]
IT WAS. For details, look up Kitzmiller vs. the Dover Board of Education. Please try to keep up.
"What's all this talk about the "facts" of macroevolution? It's a historical science. It took place in the past."
The bacteria that feeds on Nylon. A man -made material that didn't exist before the 20th Century.
In recent years (here in the 21st Century): MRSA.
NEXT!
"It should be debated in a court room, not a science lab"
Has someone here got cloth ears? Apart from that being decided six years ago in Kitzmiller vs. Dover (which a certain group of so-called 'people' are still in that river in Egypt about), the question has been answered. Ergo, I said 'NEXT!'
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
