The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Tank]

I believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.

Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.

Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.

When you go on like this, Yeti, I have a hard time following you.

But let me see if I have this right: in short, you're saying that you think humans lack any clear competitive survival advantage over apes?

You're aware that "Planet of the Apes" (novel, films and musical) was fiction right?

Apes have not, in fact, developed their own high technology (yet, anyway), let alone the ability to even use a gun.

[MAD]

I believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.

Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.

Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.

Jebus.

CAN SOMEBODY GET THIS GUY A BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK?  OR 20?

[World B Free]

I believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.

Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.

Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.

I do believe that the greater brain capacity came from these early humans moving to including more meat in their diets.  The rest of your question I'm not touching with a ten foot pole.  Believe what you want, but don't be suprised by the reactions you'll get. (I know you won't.)

Can I suggest a little Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel?

[Waco Kid]

I believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.

Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.

Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.

Not necessarily. There plenty of other evolutionary options creatures can take to either survive or become more efficient predators. It may very well be at the time the ancestors of humans may have packed together and tried to avoid/outwit their predators as opposed to head on physical assault. Also, said ancestor may have found that hunting in groups or devising ambush style tactics (which plenty of other animals do) was best for capturing prey. As a result, the genes of this improved brain capacity would be the ones that were passed on. Stonger and faster aren't the only pathways for a creature to take.

[TDubbs]

I believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.

Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.

Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.

Not necessarily. There plenty of other evolutionary options creatures can take to either survive or become more efficient predators. It may very well be at the time the ancestors of humans may have packed together and tried to avoid/outwit their predators as opposed to head on physical assault. Also, said ancestor may have found that hunting in groups or devising ambush style tactics (which plenty of other animals do) was best for capturing prey. As a result, the genes of this improved brain capacity would be the ones that were passed on. Stonger and faster aren't the only pathways for a creature to take.

Patrick Ewing.

[Brownie]

Let's get this straight. Jindal did not ban creationism from being taught in schools.  Did he require it? Does he have much authority to ban it/force it in schools? I don't know Louisiana law, and I question how much the blogger does either.  Is this something better left to local school boards?  Had Jindal tried banning/requiring creationism to be taught in the schools, would he be subjecting the state to hundreds of lawsuits?

Now if you excuse me, I'm looking for the text of the Stimulus Bill online so I can read it.

[TDubbs]

[Slaky]

Let's get this straight. Jindal did not ban creationism from being taught in schools.  Did he require it? Does he have much authority to ban it/force it in schools? I don't know Louisiana law, and I question how much the blogger does either.  Is this something better left to local school boards?  Had Jindal tried banning/requiring creationism to be taught in the schools, would he be subjecting the state to hundreds of lawsuits?

Now if you excuse me, I'm looking for the text of the Stimulus Bill online so I can read it.

Keep in mind, questioning Bobby Jindal's sanity isn't a direct insult to you nor a propping up of anything the Democrats have done.

You know what? Fuck this politics shit. I'm done with it.

[Philberto]

I believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.

Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.

Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.

When you go on like this, Yeti, I have a hard time following you.

But let me see if I have this right: in short, you're saying that you think humans lack any clear competitive survival advantage over apes?

You're aware that "Planet of the Apes" (novel, films and musical) was fiction right?

Apes have not, in fact, developed their own high technology (yet, anyway), let alone the ability to even use a gun.

In their raw form, yes.

What is this Planet of the Apes nonsense???

[Tank]

Let's get this straight. Jindal did not ban creationism from being taught in schools.  Did he require it? Does he have much authority to ban it/force it in schools? I don't know Louisiana law, and I question how much the blogger does either.  Is this something better left to local school boards?  Had Jindal tried banning/requiring creationism to be taught in the schools, would he be subjecting the state to hundreds of lawsuits?

Now if you excuse me, I'm looking for the text of the Stimulus Bill online so I can read it.

Here you go...

A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the "Louisiana Science Education Act."

B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

(2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.

In demanding that a fundamentally unscientific and explicitly theological "theory" be granted parity to science in science classrooms (at the discretion of the school board), it effectively allows for compulsory religious teaching in public schools.

Just because a particular doctrine claims to be non-sectarian, doesn't mean it's not religious. If I were clergy, I'd be concerned that this would be a travesty of religion.

As it is, I'm mostly worried about the violence teaching creationist non-science (under a different name) as "critical thinking" does to science education. (In the same way, I would be concerned that a law urging schools to "teach the controversy" in regards to the Holocaust using "supplementary materials" written by David Irving would make a mockery of history education.)

For those who are interested, by the way, here's a review of the Discovery Institute's "supplemental materials" that this law was no doubt intended to push on kids:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/09/discovery-textbook-review.ars

[ChuckD]

Now if you excuse me, I'm looking for the text of the Stimulus Bill online so I can read it.

Like this? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/arra_public_review/

[flannj]

No, no, no. Muhammad Ali says Joe Frazier.


And don't you heathens know anything about frisbeeism? We evolved from empty metal pie tins and when you die your soul floats toward heaven but gets stuck on the roof.

[Tank]

I believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.

Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.

Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.

When you go on like this, Yeti, I have a hard time following you.

But let me see if I have this right: in short, you're saying that you think humans lack any clear competitive survival advantage over apes?

You're aware that "Planet of the Apes" (novel, films and musical) was fiction right?

Apes have not, in fact, developed their own high technology (yet, anyway), let alone the ability to even use a gun.

In their raw form, yes.

What does this even mean?

So... our species' dramatically larger brains and the technology they allow us to create and the skills they allow us to harness—and the ability these things give us to actually dramatically alter our environment to fit our needs—don't count because they have no bearing on our species' ability to survive in some Platonic "raw" situation you've built up in your imagination as the non plus ultra of "survival"... where only the biggest, strongest, hairiest (and, dare I say, sexiest?) beasts will come out alive?

Survival and adaptation happen in the real world, as it exists, not in the feral jungle Thunderdome of your mind.

[Jon]

the feral jungle Thunderdome of your mind.

Man, I wish I hadn't already named my blog...

[ChuckD]

What does this even mean?

Yeti's such a free market advocate, he considers technology and rational thought to be unfair regulation, like the sharp lashes of a school marm's wooden spoon to the invisible hand of his feral jungle Thunderdome.