Textbook disclaimers

[OC]

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

:hihi:

[welfareloser]

can o worms...

:heh:

i feel a babydoll t-shirt coming on... man, that is the perfect christmas gift, isn't it?

[VNMZ]

I found a typo on the last sticker, aproached.

[OC]

I found a typo on the last sticker, aproached.
There's more than just that one typo, and they're intentional - a jab at the monkey's illiteracy.

[nickel]

There's more than just that one typo, and they're intentional - a jab at the monkey's illiteracy.
calling him a monkey is getting old.

do you believe in the Theory of Evolution OC?

[OC]

do you believe in the Theory of Evolution OC?Yes, why?

[Cantacuzene]

do you believe in the Theory of Evolution OC?

I imagine he does, since he strikes me as an educated fellow.

[blueindian]

those are great.

[welfareloser]

calling him a monkey is getting old.


so are penis jokes, but that doesn't keep em from being funny...

[InfiniteNothing]

If only we could combine the two jokes....

Spank my monkey.... he's been a bad bad president.

[nickel]

I imagine he does, since he strikes me as an educated fellow.
he already answered for himself, thanks.

-----------------------------------

so are penis jokes, but that doesn't keep em from being funny...
penis jokes are old? m'be in your book.

------------------------------

Yes, why?
because that makes us all not too far removed from :monkey:s

[welfareloser]

penis jokes are old? m'be in your book.

i bet penis jokes have been around since before language. i'd call that old. if you cross-reference socio-sexual behavior of bonobo monkeys and some dawn-of-language reconstruction theories... penis jokes in the time of heavy eyebrow ridges and knuckle-dragging are a very logical extrapolation.

there weren't any books then, tho. :P

[InfiniteNothing]

because that makes us all not too far removed from :monkey:s

depends on how you mean removed. If you mean related... depends on what you are comparing it too... we are more related to monkeys than slugs but less related to them as we are to say pygmies. If you mean related in an ancestorial way, that's not very true at all and is quite misleading; you'd be hard pressed to find a (reasonably intelligent) scientist that says we decended from monkeys (or apes from that matter).

[nickel]

depends on how you mean removed. If you mean related... depends on what you are comparing it too... we are more related to monkeys than slugs but less related to them as we are to say pygmies. If you mean related in an ancestorial way, that's not very true at all and is quite misleading; you'd be hard pressed to find a (reasonably intelligent) scientist that says we decended from monkeys (or apes from that matter).
Doesn't the Theory of Evolution suggest we evolved from primates, specifically apes?

[OC]

because that makes us all not too far removed from :monkey:sAt the risk of jumping the shark: That's all well and good, but I'd prefer the leader of the last superpower on the planet to have a higher IQ than your average monkey. I think the man is an idiot.

[blueindian]

Doesn't the Theory of Evolution suggest we evolved from primates, specifically apes?

not at all.

[welfareloser]

Doesn't the Theory of Evolution suggest we evolved from primates, specifically apes?

no. we and apes descended from a common ancestor. we did not evolve from any species that is around today.

we are closer to apes than monkeys, genetically speaking.

[nickel]

At the risk of jumping the shark: That's all well and good, but I'd prefer the leader of the last superpower on the planet to have a higher IQ than your average monkey. I think the man is an idiot.
this we know, as you've stated that time and time again.

but the man did not get where he is by being illiterate.

[welfareloser]

but the man did not get where he is by being illiterate.

right. he got there in spite of it.

[nickel]

right. he got there in spite of it.
give me a f'ckin break. he is not illiterate.

[welfareloser]

give me a f'ckin break. he is not illiterate.

illiteracy is not a yes-or-no condition. there are levels of functional illiteracy. i find his level unacceptably low. as a general rule, i'd prefer a president who could define the words he uses.

there's your break. like it?

and, for the record, i don't particularly care that he's unintelligent. he has surrounded himself with very smart people, and is a very effective president because of that. dumb is no big deal. and i think he's probably a very likable guy. i simply don't like the policies of his administration.

[BrewMaster]

wow. i thought those stickers were freakin' hilarious. not just the last one either (though it was funny too).

I also find it funny that Nickel is defending Bush likes he's a beloved family member. He's not related to you, is he Nickel?

The joke will get old when he leaves office. He got re-elected and so did the monkey jokes.

[nickel]

I also find it funny that Nickel is defending Bush likes he's a beloved family member. He's not related to you, is he Nickel?

funny you should mention that...

[DankNstickY]

that explains so much...

hehe

[nickel]

that explains so much...

hehe
like what?

[BrewMaster]

funny you should mention that...
care to explain or are you just being facetious? (damn the internet for its absence of tone.)

[welfareloser]

do you believe in the Theory of Evolution ...?

this question doesn't have a right answer because the question itself is simply wrong... for the same reason putting parental advisory stickers on science textbooks is wrong.

one does not "believe" in the theory of evolution the way one "believes" in creationism.

if you believe in creationism, you have faith in something unproven, and nothing will shake that faith. that's a wonderful thing. it simply isn't science any more than it is creative writing or phys ed.

if you "believe" in the theory of evolution, you believe that:

1) it is the best explanation for all of the data that has been collected so far

2) it is a useful paradigm that allows us to make accurate predictions about related areas of science,

and

3) it may, at any time, be replaced with a more accurate and more useful theory given that the preponderance of evidence starts pointing in another direction.

there is a seven-step scientific method. posited in a scientific manner, the "theory of creationism" fails miserably at every step. hence, it is not science. any attempts at creationism's inclusion in science is inherently sad - both in the ridiculousness of the supposed "theory" itself, and in what it says about the weakness of faith of those trying to cram it in anyway. faith needs no proof, and it is cheapened by those who try to validate it by dressing it up with pretend proof and laughably bad "science." to think that god's own biblical truth somehow NEEDS legitimization in 8th grade science books is ... well, neither sound faith nor sound science. way to go and poop on two birds with one poot!

anyone who can calm down and think rationally doesn't have this problem. germany is so full of faithful christians that every public school has a religion class - your choice of lutheran or catholic. creationism is discussed in religion class. evolution is discussed in science class. nobody complains either way (not even the turkish muslims :P ) not surprisingly, since germany lacks the knee-jerk religiosity that runs rampant in this country... and it's not because germany is a more secular place. the germans seem to me to be much more faithful, with much higher church attendance, and all those lovely, lovely holy days in the month of may off school and work :D

my son's school is as hardline as it gets in this neck of the woods. they are creationists with a capital C (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=565). and? the preschoolers do a unit on dinosaurs. the middle schoolers are taught the theory of evolution. the eighth graders have discussions about how to approach the difference in what science tells them and what faith tells them. the school newsletter published synopses of the eighth graders' science fair projects last year, and one was by a girl who asked the question "will we ever be able to scientifically prove creationism?" she compiled a list of evidence that would be needed for creationism to meet rigorous scientific standards. it was an excellent project.

my point: anyone who freaks out at science textbooks not giving a shout out to creationism has, temporarily at least, lost his or her ability to think straight.

[dsuds]

welfareloser,

BRAVO!! WELL SAID!!

[welfareloser]

thanks. that thought's been itching at the back of my head since yesterday afternoon, and i finally got around to articulating it this morning. aaaahhh, how the written word soothes my soul...