Holy shit this new "academic freedom" bullshit is so backassward full of doublespeak it makes my head spin.
They are calling the new creationist/"intelligent design" crap "The Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act". Wait, what? That makes it sound like it stands for exactly the opposite of what it does, which is academic restriction and the NON-scientific theory of creationism.
This one is rich:
The Discovery Institute is offering an alternative to Darwin Day that it is calling "Academic Freedom Day." "We're doing sort of a counter to Darwin Day, which has become a sort of quasi-religious celebration," says John West, a senior fellow at the Institute.
Wait... Darwin and scientific theories like evolution are now "religious"... but your theory that God created the universe is.. not?
The Discovery Institute has nothing to do with the Discovery Channel right?
No. The Discovery Institute is an intelligent design thing. They like to think what they're doing is science, when really they're a bunch of fucking charlatans.
I like to think The Discovery Channel promotes science and sensible thought, but the other day, I saw a show about psychic crime investigators on it. That annoyed me.
The Discovery Institute has nothing to do with the Discovery Channel right?
haha dear god no
DI is basically a creatonist/ID organization that tries to pass itself off as a scientific think tank in an effort to make ID seem legit
edit: yeah Dublo, TDC is pretty much just entertainment these days
I don't even consider it edutainment because almost everything they show is utter bullshit
The Discovery Institute has nothing to do with the Discovery Channel right?
haha dear god no
DI is basically a creatonist/ID organization that tries to pass itself off as a scientific think tank in an effort to make ID seem legit
edit: yeah Dublo, TDC is pretty much just entertainment these days
I don't even consider it edutainment because almost everything they show is utter bullshit
Here's an example of a piece of writing from The Discovery Institute. If you can't read it all, I don't blame you. TLDR; "Making a human and giving birth is way too complex for evolution - God did it"
Darwin's Birth Day
By: Geoffrey Simmons
Amazon.com
February 11, 2009
Link to Original Article
Had Charles Darwin been able to witness his own gestation period, might he have changed his mind about the evolution of mankind? Assuming that he was an honest and keen observer of nature--and the evidence suggests that he was--the answer is a resounding yes. He essentially said so in 1872 when he wrote:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would ultimately breakdown.”
He could not have known about the union of an egg and sperm, which alone is an extraordinarily complex process that depends on an all-or-none phenomenon (trial-and-error, tiny, successive steps won’t work), and he readily admitted that he had no idea why a child resembled his parents--another incredibly convoluted process with numerous successive, interdependent steps. He wrote a biology- dominating book during a time when science had the badly mistaken idea that human fetuses pass through fish, amphibian and reptilian stages. Biologists also knew nothing about the mechanisms needed to change a fertilized egg into multi-trillion cell human being wherein each successive step is dependent upon the previous ones, resembling a three-dimensional domino game that gets larger and larger (more and more formed) by the millisecond. We now know each step depends on the previous step being correct and on time. Many of the chemical reactions happen in a millionth of a second; billions of reactions happen simultaneously. If one domino, especially an early one (a precursor), falls the wrong way (a mutation perhaps?), it may adversely impact the entire configuration. And note that mistakes will typically result in a damaged or aborted fetus, never a newer, improved version or a changed species.
Just for the record, let’s give Mr. Darwin a more contemporary look at his real birth day. When the time came to initiate his delivery, he would have felt his body release millions of specialized compounds that would travel through the placenta to select sites in his mother’s brain to alert her that he was ready. My lungs are mature enough to breathe, they would have told her. My heart and brain are ready to take the helm. These signals have to be the correct chemical triggers, not successive, sometimes ineffective, trial-and-error touches. He then would have seen a cascade of varied maternal chemicals return to start up the birthing apparatus, dramatically repositioning him for the journey and then rhythmically moving him through the birth canal in a very precise, orchestrated manner. Other newly released chemicals, by the billions, from his mother would have also warded off dangerous infections and lessened her pain (and maybe his pain).
This journey would have been a more dangerous trip than Darwin’s voyage to the Galapagos Islands.
Yet, thanks to good fortune, he slept through it all (purposefully?). Although his skull would have been nearly crushed, the bones would have been pliable enough and the ligaments in his mother’s pelvis relaxed at just the right moment. He would then, being quite slippery, have glided out into a different reality. He would have arrived with brown fat to sustain him, a cry to get attention and sucking reflex to get nutrition. The placenta would follow like a turned leaf in autumn. His mother’s milk would be ready for suckling.
Darwin’s first breath would have needed to come at a very specific moment. If it had come too soon, he would have died of suffocation or aspiration; too late, and he would have suffered brain damage or an anoxic death. As he began breathing, an artery in his chest would shut off and a hole in his heart close so that his lungs could receive the blood. Without this prompt and dramatic shift, his lungs would not been able to deliver oxygen to the rest of his body. Without these kinds of changes, the human race would never have existed.
Every aspect, meaning trillions of cells and an astronomical number of chemical and genetic reactions, had to happen in the right way, at the right time and in the right place. Childbirth, like many processes in the human body, could not have come about in small increments by trial-and-error. Otherwise, it would be like trying to launch a space shuttle craft, adding one wire at a time.
Darwin’s birthday may be a time to celebrate, but not more so than the birthday of any other human being, maybe every living being
Here's an example of a piece of writing from The Discovery Institute. If you can't read it all, I don't blame you. TLDR; "Making a human and giving birth is way too complex for evolution - God did it"
terrible terribleness
man
that is so full of stupid, it's ridiculous
Lockout on
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Had Charles Darwin been able to witness his own gestation period, might he have changed his mind about the evolution of mankind? Assuming that he was an honest and keen observer of nature--and the evidence suggests that he was--the answer is a resounding yes. He essentially said so in 1872 when he wrote:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would ultimately breakdown.â€
Had Charles Darwin been able to witness his own gestation period, might he have changed his mind about the evolution of mankind? Assuming that he was an honest and keen observer of nature--and the evidence suggests that he was--the answer is a resounding yes. He essentially said so in 1872 when he wrote:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would ultimately breakdown.â€
one is that we're doing chemistry basics in lecture right now and how they're used in the body and conversation invariably turns to something something diets, which leads to the majority of girls in the class to ask shit like
WHAT ABOUT THOSE SHAKES THAT CONTROL YOUR HUNGER?
goddammit bitch, control your hunger by eating some fucking food
secondly, in lab we obviously use microscopes, and i am perpetually surprised by how retarded people are. I haven't used a microscope in four or five years and yet it takes me a maximum of 30 seconds to zero in on the slides, while others are sitting there for half an hour going "PROFESSOR I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING"
one guy in my group kept going PROFESSOR THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING NONE OF THIS WORKS
he's like 30
i got fed up and told him give me the fucking microscope and OH LOOK THERE IS THE FUCKING THING ON THE SLIDE TOOK ME TEN SECONDS HOW ARE YOU THIS RETARDED
one guy in my group kept going PROFESSOR THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING NONE OF THIS WORKS
he's like 30
i got fed up and told him give me the fucking microscope and OH LOOK THERE IS THE FUCKING THING ON THE SLIDE TOOK ME TEN SECONDS HOW ARE YOU THIS RETARDED
Haha.
I was a TA for a entry level microbiology lab once. No one was quite THAT dumb but there are aspects of using a microscope that aren't completely simple.
I did have one lady, though, who was about 50 and once broke down and accused me of ageism because she claimed I was helping all the young people over her.
Really I was just helping anyone who asked a question and she rarely did but she managed to make me feel pretty bad. Which is too bad, because she wasn't that smart and probably couldn't do a gram stain without my help.
none of the more complicated aspects come into play when using a simple 4/10/40x microscope (x10 eyepiece) and really really basic dry and wet slides
edit: i mean i guess the way i play around with both the illuminator strength and diaphragm at the same time to get the sharpest picture might not be obvious at first but i totally should be after ten minutes of playing around with it
but no, they take ten minutes just to figure out where the switch for the illuminator is
Posts
I imagine it would be uncomfortable, like being poked in the balls and asked to cough.
My Large Hadron Collider's stuck inside your wife's wormhole.
as it stands, I'm basically just calling myself fat
They are calling the new creationist/"intelligent design" crap "The Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act". Wait, what? That makes it sound like it stands for exactly the opposite of what it does, which is academic restriction and the NON-scientific theory of creationism.
This one is rich:
Wait... Darwin and scientific theories like evolution are now "religious"... but your theory that God created the universe is.. not?
*boggle*
Anyway, they can just start shutting the fuck up because the freakin Vatican now says Darwin is cool.
I like to think The Discovery Channel promotes science and sensible thought, but the other day, I saw a show about psychic crime investigators on it. That annoyed me.
DI is basically a creatonist/ID organization that tries to pass itself off as a scientific think tank in an effort to make ID seem legit
edit: yeah Dublo, TDC is pretty much just entertainment these days
I don't even consider it edutainment because almost everything they show is utter bullshit
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/miracle_of_birth_occurs_for_83
fantastic
druhim is so old that he keeps the contract he got from god to bury fake fossils in the ground framed in his offce
man
that is so full of stupid, it's ridiculous
flaming jesus
no see a flaming jesus is a real drink
I have a quote from Darwin in response to that.
"But I can find out no such case."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Well I guess if you found such a case you could prove me wrong but OH WAIT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE
BITCH
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
ahaha.
Did they really use that as a quote.
Satans..... hints.....
two things are frustrating the hell out of me
one is that we're doing chemistry basics in lecture right now and how they're used in the body and conversation invariably turns to something something diets, which leads to the majority of girls in the class to ask shit like
WHAT ABOUT THOSE SHAKES THAT CONTROL YOUR HUNGER?
goddammit bitch, control your hunger by eating some fucking food
secondly, in lab we obviously use microscopes, and i am perpetually surprised by how retarded people are. I haven't used a microscope in four or five years and yet it takes me a maximum of 30 seconds to zero in on the slides, while others are sitting there for half an hour going "PROFESSOR I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING"
he's like 30
i got fed up and told him give me the fucking microscope and OH LOOK THERE IS THE FUCKING THING ON THE SLIDE TOOK ME TEN SECONDS HOW ARE YOU THIS RETARDED
I rule with a fucking Microscope, son.
move the slide a bit on low power till you see something, should be fine if you're not a paraplegic
focus
move to a higher power
fine focus
etc
Secret Satan
Haha.
I was a TA for a entry level microbiology lab once. No one was quite THAT dumb but there are aspects of using a microscope that aren't completely simple.
I did have one lady, though, who was about 50 and once broke down and accused me of ageism because she claimed I was helping all the young people over her.
Really I was just helping anyone who asked a question and she rarely did but she managed to make me feel pretty bad. Which is too bad, because she wasn't that smart and probably couldn't do a gram stain without my help.
Secret Satan
edit: i mean i guess the way i play around with both the illuminator strength and diaphragm at the same time to get the sharpest picture might not be obvious at first but i totally should be after ten minutes of playing around with it
but no, they take ten minutes just to figure out where the switch for the illuminator is