LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

More Stealth Creationism in Texas

Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 5:44:15 pm PDT

At New Scientist, Lawrence Krauss looks at another attempt by the Discovery Institute to push “intelligent design” pseudo-science into classrooms, this time in Texas: Commentary: Stop creationists undermining school science.

The most recent and blatant example of the sorry condition of state education boards comes from Texas, whose education board is now debating whether high-school texts should be required to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution”.

These are the latest code words being promoted by PR central for Intelligent Design, aka the Discovery Institute in Seattle, in an attempt to undermine the teaching of evolution. (The same body also distributed a petition in various states to pressure schools to “teach the controversy” - its earlier slogan - in a campaign designed to suggest that evolution was somehow scientifically controversial.)

Whatever one may think about the possible merits of introducing the specious weaknesses of evolutionary biology into science classes, even if only to tear them down by demonstrating that they do not stand up to experimental evidence, the big problem is that the people taking decisions on these matters seem completely ignorant about science.

Take Don McLeroy, chairman of the state education board. A dentist from central Texas, he is also one of seven among the board’s 15 members who back the notion of intelligent design, along with the state’s governor, Rick Perry. McLeroy not only does not accept evolution, but also believes that the Earth is thousands, not billions, of years old. This alone makes him uniquely unqualified to judge any scientific curriculum. And with Texas being one of the biggest buyers of textbooks in the US, what happens there could influence the contents of books used across the country.

Texas is not unique in having a State Board of Ignorance. Another influential figure is Steve Abrams, a veterinarian and member of the state education board of Kansas. In 1999, he was the major force in getting evolution and big-bang cosmology removed from the state science curriculum, though that decision was later overturned. In 2005, as chair of the board, Abrams led his fellow young-Earth creationists in voting to make evidence against evolution part of the curriculum, and to change the definition of science to allow for supernatural explanations of events.

When public committees appraise existing knowledge in order to set educational standards, or report on the status of scientific knowledge for use in the public domain, the people involved should be required to demonstrate independent, relevant expertise. School board members should not be beholden to those who have elected them, nor should they represent political constituencies. They should instead be appointed by elected officials following thorough vetting and peer review.

The health of a modern society depends on the opportunities it provides its children through education. That’s too important to be left to amateurs, much less enemies of knowledge.

Amen, brother.

Advertisement

1292 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:46:28pm

Here at LGF we have a different idea of what "teach the controversy" means.

Keep shining the light, Charles!

2 Zach_the_Lizard  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:46:35pm

"Intelligent design" must not apply to these people.

3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:47:05pm

Some will call this an attack on Christians and Conservatives in 5.. 4.. 3..

4 ted  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:47:20pm

More junk science.

5 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:48:35pm

How in hell did the Discovery Institute end up in leftist, moonbat filled Seattle?

6 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:48:39pm
7 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:49:39pm
The health of a modern society depends on the opportunities it provides its children through education. That’s too important to be left to amateurs, much less enemies of knowledge.

The politicizing of education has done nothing but give American children the fuzzy end of the lollipop.

8 SayeretMatkal  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:50:37pm

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Some will call this an attack on Christians and Conservatives in 5.. 4.. 3..

No, but I will call it pointless.

9 grumpy old codger  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:51:05pm

Yawn! I'm more concerned about the ROP trying to spearate my head from my shoulders.

10 yochanan  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:51:38pm

an old jewish joke 2 jews thus 3 shuls one that neither would go to.
so we have to have at least three threads one for me not to post an opinion on.

11 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:53:16pm

re: #10 yochanan
Pardon my ignorance, what is a shul? Please.

12 Alouette  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:53:35pm

re: #11 pingjockey

Pardon my ignorance, what is a shul? Please.

A shul is a synagogue.

13 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:54:07pm

re: #8 SayeretMatkal

No, but I will call it pointless.

Agreed, these people have no business anywhere near a science classroom.

14 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:54:12pm

Why is it no one ever complains about the thread topic when it's a music thread?

15 Chip Designer  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:55:43pm

Does Texas really exert all that much power in US textbook selection? I've heard this argument for years. Yet nowadays, it has become cheaper than ever before to produce books in small volumes.

I am as pro-science and pro-evolution as you can get. But this argument just doesn't seem to apply anymore.

16 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:55:59pm

Here is an interesting take on this loud controversy. I present it with out comment, and I'm out of here!


There’s a revolution going on in microbiology, occasioned (as is usual for scientific progress) by improvements in technology, and the explosion of information there has not been friendly to neo-Darwinism’s model of descent with modification. That’s an understatement.

The gene theory of biology has taken a severe beating over the last 15 years or so. It’s perfectly clear that genes do not carry information to describe large segments of what we see in the biosphere (the shapes of living objects, for example, are not found in the genes at all.) If that information does not exist in genes, then it cannot possibly have evolved by way of genetic mutation or genetic drift. Prompted by this discovery, biologist Michael Denton and his co-workers in Australia developed a theory of natural laws in the biosphere, analogous to the laws that govern physics, and used their hypothesis to predict a series of laws governing the behavior of protein folds. Their hypothesis proved correct in the laboratory; they discovered something like 1,000 separate protein fold patterns, all behaving according to a definable set of rules that correspond to physical characteristics of the molecules themselves. Their findings were published by invitation in Nature(1) and in the Journal of Theoretical Biology(2).

Here's the link:
Scroll down to the second artile on science, Darwin, etc.

17 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:56:35pm

re: #14 Sharmuta

What are we doing on an ID thread, Sharmuta? This is bad for digestion of the supper I'm eating.

18 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:56:45pm

re: #12 Alouette

Thank you. See this wasn't a wasted thread for me, I learned something!

19 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:58:33pm

re: #7 Sharmuta

I was just about to excerpt the same quote. I think that say it all.

20 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:58:34pm

re: #16 Ojoe

Michael Denton is a favorite of the Disco Institute.

21 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:58:38pm

re: #7 Sharmuta

So true, so true. Many public schools are in trouble to begin with. To have the already heavy burden of agenda-driven politics increased by those calling themselves 'Christian' is inexcusable.

22 Chip Designer  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:58:56pm

I live in Texas, and my children attend one of the op public schools in the state. And they come home with creationist nonsense. A lot comes from other sources. Fellow kids, church, and perhaps some of the teachers.

In my house, it is no dinner until you can recite Darwin from memory. (See, I have learned something from the Islamists!)

23 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 5:59:14pm

re: #5 pingjockey

How in hell did the Discovery Institute end up in leftist, moonbat filled Seattle?

Moonbats, wingnuts, all you need is fruits for a bowl of granol, and Capitol hill has plenty.

24 Teacake!  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:00:09pm

Way off topic, but I'd be interested to hear how others interpret what I guess is a poetic passing thought... unfortunately not written about me. Long story, so I won't go into that.

This is what this man wrote -

"Y" changes like the stars
I change like the weather

I have no idea what context that is or if that matters. I will read any input and remain in the background. THank you in advance if anyone cares to give their impressions

25 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:00:55pm

re: #23 jcm
Is that where the institute is? Figured the Gaians, Lemurians, Paulians, or somebody would've ran them out by now.

26 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:01:05pm

re: #20 Sharmuta


Denton has been an influential proponent of intelligent design and is a former Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement.
27 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:01:31pm

re: #23 jcm

Moonbats, wingnuts, all you need is fruits for a bowl of granol, and Capitol hill has plenty.

What's that thing out there called, again? ... PukeIt Sound?

28 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:01:54pm

re: #26 Killgore Trout

I noted this morning that these folks tend to run in the same circles- reminded me of another group to come under scrutiny here at LGF.

29 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:02:23pm

re: #5 pingjockey

How in hell did the Discovery Institute end up in leftist, moonbat filled Seattle?

The question answers itself.

30 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:02:55pm

re: #27 pre-Boomer Marine brat
Now, now, it is part of my state too. Granted it is on the loonie side of the Cascades, but it is pretty.

31 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:03:02pm
32 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:03:10pm

Ok, who's going to be the first to claim anti-Christian bias and hurt feelings?
I give it 70 posts.

33 mcrognale  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:03:33pm

The mistake my brother and sister Christians make is not allowing God to be smart. The Adam and Eve story was designed to allow primitive peoples to begin to understand the existence of God. There is no conflict between the idea that God created the heavens and the earth and the evidence for evolution. Where the creationists fail is their inability to allow that God set the whole evolutionary train in motion and stepped in to tweak from time to time.
Mike

34 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:03:47pm
35 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:04:10pm

re: #32 Killgore Trout

I tend to click your nic on these threads- just thought I'd share.

36 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:04:46pm

re: #30 pingjockey

Now, now, it is part of my state too. Granted it is on the loonie side of the Cascades, but it is pretty.

*chuckle*
I've heard it's gorgeous. Never been there.

37 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:04:47pm

re: #29 Slumbering Behemoth
Not at all. Most of the leftists(IMO) would have very little to do with creationists. God, faith, turn the other cheek, etc..

38 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:04:56pm

re: #25 pingjockey

Is that where the institute is? Figured the Gaians, Lemurians, Paulians, or somebody would've ran them out by now.

Close enough, smack downtown.

39 kansas  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:05:36pm

Take Don McLeroy, chairman of the state education board. A dentist from central Texas, he is also one of seven among the board’s 15 members who back the notion of intelligent design, along with the state’s governor, Rick Perry. McLeroy not only does not accept evolution, but also believes that the Earth is thousands, not billions, of years old.

I thought dentists had to take basic science.

40 yochanan  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:05:43pm

how about a thread on the iranian threat to close the streight of hormoz
this could effect all of us. I.D. PRO OR CON does not effect me one way or the other

41 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:06:19pm

Wow- the creationists are dinging early.

42 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:06:21pm

re: #29 Slumbering Behemoth

You'd be surprised. I've known many moonbats who support the right of religious nuts to refuse medical care for their children, and perform bizarre rituals like exorcisms.

43 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:06:25pm

re: #32 Killgore Trout

I see you're in an optimistic mood today. You feeling o.k.?
/

44 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:06:26pm

re: #38 jcm
Holy crap. Right in the heart of moonbat central.

45 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:06:34pm

I am going to disagree with the "schoolboards shouldn't be elected" bit. As Kansas demonstrated a small core of idiots can sometimes get elected, but when they make superstition part of Science class, they get voted out, even in Kansas. That doesn't happen to appointees.

In Kansas the religious right votes every election, when they drift too fundamental all of the regular folks show up and there's a correction. Dennis Moore, D, is one of those corrections.

46 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:06:44pm

re: #35 Sharmuta

Click away!

47 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:06:48pm

re: #27 pre-Boomer Marine brat

What's that thing out there called, again? ... PukeIt Sound?

Now, now.....

48 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:06:56pm
49 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:07:02pm

Teach HISTORY!

/Social Studies is the History Department's creationism...

50 yochanan  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:07:32pm

I.D. threads should happen closer to bed time i could save on ambien.

51 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:07:34pm

re: #42 Killgore Trout

What? Really.(not kidding)

52 kalvinb  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:07:35pm

"in voting to make evidence against evolution part of the curriculum"

Shouldn't that already be part of the curriculum?

Teaching the supernatural in a science classroom is wrong but so is teaching Evolution as unquestionable fact.

That would avoid silly articles such as

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

which claims

1. Absolutely closed systems do not exist even under ideal laboratory conditions

and then right after

2. Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are

Or maybe that was due to the lack of a logic course.

When lizards are "evolving" in 30 years and bacteria are "evolving" in 20, maybe it's time to question the validity and accuracy of our dating methods.

The only one I learned about in HS was carbon dating which I only later found out was so terrible that it had to be calibrated by tree rings in order to give accurate results.

Talking about all the "assumptions" that evolution relies on and their significance without the BS like Talk Origins provided would be useful knowledge as well.

If you want to teach "millions of years" in a science classroom then you should provide the tools to the students to do the calculations themselves and see how they can be affected by trace amounts of certain elements.

53 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:08:04pm

re: #32 Killgore Trout

I object to your blatant, evil-secularist, anti-Christian bias! My feelings are aching with bitter anguish!

(How much did I win?)

54 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:08:22pm

re: #50 yochanan

There are other threads- the Spy tells me they are still active.

55 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:08:48pm

re: #43 Slumbering Behemoth

You take the under, I'll take the over. Wanna bet on when we get the next dramatic exit from someone with less than 40 posts?

56 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:08:54pm

re: #41 Sharmuta

Wow- the creationists are dinging early.

Yep.

Hey! Living4Him5534 you're lurking join in the fray. Pot shots from the peanut gallery are cheap.

57 kansas  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:09:10pm

re: #45 Thanos

Even in Kansas? Dennis Moore is my Congressman, Kathy Sebelius is the governor, and Kansas supported Obama in the primary, so the small group of idiots is getting bigger.

58 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:09:15pm

re: #37 pingjockey

They are like minded in their tactics. Different goals, same playbook.

59 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:09:29pm

re: #47 jcm

Now, now.....

GORGEOUS!

60 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:09:31pm

re: #51 pingjockey

There are libertarian moonbats. They're also called anarchists.

61 jamgarr  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:09:39pm

ID thread at LGF = internecine war

62 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:10:02pm

OH GOD! I just picked up a day old Dr. Pepper can took a swig. ACK!

63 SummerSong  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:10:14pm

re: #24 Teacake!


"Y" changes like the stars
I change like the weather

"Y" seemingly never changes - like the stars
"I" changes constantly - like the weather

64 reno911  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:10:57pm

If I understand the debate, ID is just religion in disguise. And discussing religion in a science class is a bad thing. I get that part.

What I don't get is that the ID proponents (DI) apparently originate in Seattle. Seattle? Seattle? Seattle is now a hot-bed of religion? Hmmm..

Also, why is "debating whether high-school texts should be required to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution” a bad thing? Shouldn't we be searching for the truth?

65 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:11:03pm
66 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:11:21pm

re: #52 kalvinb

Kalvinist:

There are multiple methods of dating, as we've posted them many times already. They include krypton, argon, carbon, tree rings, surrounding sediment, ice cores and meteorlogical events that put specific markers in the strata across the world. Scientists using only one method get laughed at by other scientists. Please get a clue.

67 LoFlyer  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:11:21pm

re: #40 yochanan

how about a thread on the iranian threat to close the streight of hormoz
this could effect all of us. I.D. PRO OR CON does not effect me one way or the other

Iran can give it their best shot. This will not settle well with Europe or the ME. Some serious sanctions would occur if Iran attempts an operation. I have no doubt that the US Navy knows exactly how to deal with Iran, not to mention the Air-Force. This is a no-win scenario for Iran....

68 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:11:51pm
69 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:11:52pm

re: #62 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Fresh Dr. Pepper is bad enough!

70 hazzyday  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:12:17pm

Scientists aren't particulary exempt from the label of being amateurs. They exhibit their own form of cognitive dissonance. Which is probably worse then someone in the general public.

By making this statement. " Texas is not unique in having a State Board of Ignorance." Mr. Krauss reveals himself as to having a much similiar mindset to those he opposes then he probably suspects. While the description might well fit and I myself seem more and more tempted to use it. For a scientist, to me, it means he is unable to construe logical points. I then assume he is just having a viseral reaction based on his emotions and not his reason. Thus his argument is weakened. He would be a person prone to overlook and not see facts and trends.

Probably these politicans and commentators need to be placed on a public hot seat and reveal if they are "young earthers". Very similiar to troofers and in my opinion the holocaust deniers. Poltical leaders that hold any of these vapid psychologies should be taken to task in science and in the media.

In terms of beginnings and endings it is not ignorant to hold the belief of ID. It is then important to develop adequate reasoning process and acceptance of conventional axioms of life in order to function in a growing and evolving society. Science should not be held to a standard that it can't contain misjudgements and errors. That is dishonest and not a recognition of reality. Religion should not be held to high moral standards by it's opponents. Sin should be recognized in it's proper place. A repentant sinner is often closer to God then we judge. To throw that stone, makes one part of the rabble.

If I wear my religious hat, the ID folks are bigtime sinners. They perform the work of the devil. It is EXtremely unwise to give them any type of traction in an educational system. For people that sell their soul to ID they should back out while they can. Find some more platable method of giving people moral and ethical choices.

71 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:12:39pm

re: #24 Teacake!

Way off topic, but I'd be interested to hear how others interpret what I guess is a poetic passing thought... unfortunately not written about me. Long story, so I won't go into that.

This is what this man wrote -

"Y" changes like the stars
I change like the weather

I have no idea what context that is or if that matters. I will read any input and remain in the background. THank you in advance if anyone cares to give their impressions

Y --- why is constant, always asking. The same question
I --- you, me, are always changing life, learning, everyday I is different.

72 thedopefishlives  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:13:17pm

Hi, I'm the dopefish and I have a confession to make.

I'm a Christian and a young-earth creationist. (Flood of ding-downs.)

With that out of the way, I agree that ID and creationism should NOT be taught in schools. ID is just a half-baked attempt to force creationism where it doesn't belong, and creationism is - well, a religious belief. And for the record, I do believe in evolution insofar as it is observable in the laboratory. (Another flood of ding-downs.)

73 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:13:30pm

Stop picking on Christians, you meanies!

/do I?

74 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:13:35pm

re: #55 Killgore Trout

Okay, if I win you have to tell me how you got to link a video to your nic. I can't figure that out.

Dramatic exits? I am not so optimistic about that. Threats of exiting, with dramatic flair, yet never actually making an exit? Sounds more likely.

75 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:13:37pm

Quotations from Chairman McLeroy:


"Given all the time in the world, I don't think I could make a spider out of a rock. However, most of the books we are considering adopting, claim that Nothing made a spider out of a rock.

I don't think I share a common ancestor with a tree. However, most of the books we are considering adopting, claim as a fact that we all share a common ancestor with a tree."
Don McLeroy


[Link: www.texscience.org...]

76 wumpus hunter  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:13:56pm

I discussed the similarity between these efforts at "Balanced" textbooks and the Fairness doctrine in the air waves.

I worry that it is hypicritcal to support one and whine about the other. Of course this comparision made everyone mad..

Thoughts?

77 kalvinb  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:14:17pm

"Where the creationists fail is their inability to allow that God set the whole evolutionary train in motion and stepped in to tweak from time to time. "

Seems odd that God would create something, wait billions of years for it to mature and then stick his nose in it for the last 10 thousand years.

Also seems odd that if God is all powerful that he wouldn't just create everything in the mature state and give it the ability to adapt to a changing world in ways we're just finally being able to understand.

It's a bit ridiculous that this whole debate is simply because dating methods are easily prone to astronomical errors. Especially considering that lizards have evolved in 30 years and bacteria in 20.

Maybe it's time the evolutionists starting re-evaluating how long things actually take.

78 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:14:51pm

re: #58 Slumbering Behemoth

re: #60 Killgore Trout

Ahhh. I have missed those characters or I didn't realize what they were.

79 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:14:51pm

re: #64 reno911

why is "debating whether high-school texts should be required to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution” a bad thing?

See Charles' informational posts of the past few days. The DI has a library of canned talking points, which sound fine to the un-inquisitive layman. These are the "weaknesses" mentioned. They're easily refutable.

80 kansas  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:15:32pm

re: #72 thedopefishlives

Hi, I'm a lifelong Republican and have never voted for a Democrat, but Barack Obama inspires me...............................just kidding. You were kidding, right?

81 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:15:34pm

re: #74 Slumbering Behemoth

Go into "manager your account" and add it to the URL provided. Make sure to save changes.

82 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:16:34pm

re: #65 Killgore Trout

Fog rolling in

Wow! Haven't seen one of those in decades. Thanks.

83 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:17:10pm

re: #77 kalvinb

I'm simply astounded by the arrogance of Man to define God and His abilities. It's more than a bit blasphemous, don't you think?

84 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:17:20pm
85 thedopefishlives  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:17:49pm

re: #80 kansas

Hi, I'm a lifelong Republican and have never voted for a Democrat, but Barack Obama inspires me...............................just kidding. You were kidding, right?

Do I look like I'm kidding? I know it sounds like cognitive dissonance, and it probably wouldn't make sense to anyone else if I tried to explain it, which is why I won't. I just wanted the air to be clear when I post on these threads as to where I'm coming from. I won't deny that many people identified with my beliefs are crackpots, liars, and intellectually dishonest, and it saddens me.

86 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:17:58pm

re: #55 Killgore Trout

You take the under, I'll take the over. Wanna bet on when we get the next dramatic exit from someone with less than 40 posts?

So how many dramatic exits have we had so far?
Anyone keeping count?

87 hazzyday  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:17:58pm

re: #42 Killgore Trout

Adults should be allowed to pursure their faith this way. Kids though should not. There is probably not enough legislation in this area. There should be a legal age of say 18 before a child is allowed to pursue faith based healing. Prayer can be accomodated with the care of a physician.

88 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:18:28pm

re: #72 thedopefishlives

I dinged you up just to irritate you. :) Are you this critter's namesake?

89 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:18:53pm

re: #83 Sharmuta

I was just thinking the same thing. Are we not taught that it is the height of hubris to claim we know the mind of God? Yikes.

90 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:19:14pm

re: #82 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Wow! Haven't seen one of those in decades. Thanks.

Near Coos Bay.

New Carissa removal comes closer with second salvage barge being put in place

91 canerican[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:19:30pm
92 hazzyday  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:19:44pm

re: #77 kalvinb

God could well be "consciousness waiting" with time as one of his tools. To us finite ants it seems impossible.

93 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:20:42pm

re: #91 canerican

I know I said I wasn't going to comment anymore, and this is my last on any creationism thread. I won't debate, but I will say that if you believe that creationism should taught is school, what better way that to give money?

I just sent them $20.

So you aren't a man of your word.

94 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:21:17pm
95 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:21:19pm

re: #81 Sharmuta

Go into "manager your account" and add it to the URL provided. Make sure to save changes.

Okay, I'm dense, what do you mean in that bolded part?

96 reno911  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:21:28pm

re: #79 pre-Boomer Marine brat

"un-inquisitive"?

FYI, I quoted the author of the story, not DI.

un-inquisitive indeed.

97 gozza  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:22:06pm

I dont understand why there is so much angst against teaching that there are MAJOR problems with Darwinism? Not talking about teaching biblical young-earth style creationism - that`s just silly. But most of the ID stuff has nothing to do with that ?

#16 Ojoe, posted this excellent link. Very thought provoking.
[Link: www.plumbbobblog.com...]

Extreme belief in Darwinism (and the associated hatred of ID) seems to be just as "religious" to me as the creationists !

98 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:22:26pm

re: #95 Slumbering Behemoth

Go into "manage your account" and you'll see it there listed like that. That's where you put the link to your video.

99 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:23:25pm

re: #95 Slumbering Behemoth

Sorry- guess it says "home page".

100 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:24:12pm

OT
Ok, I'm sure you all already know about it, but I'm sickened. I'm playing an online game that sends you around to all these different websites (and lgf is on one of the missions, so another lizard may be playing) and I just wound up on some cesspool called alternet. WTF, paranoid conspiracy theories set up in a actual news format? This site was sick. I think it was actually worse than KOS or DU, at least from the times I've had to look on there.

101 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:24:28pm

Speaking of asshats, I haven't seen Lance around these parts lately... anyone?

102 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:24:38pm

re: #97 gozza

"IT’S LIKE ONE OF THOSE OLD gangster movies. The good guys arrest the hoodlum and he’s put on trial. What does the bad guy inevitably say? “Those dirty rats! I’ve been framed! The witnesses against me are all lying!”

That’s an ancient cliche in the movies, one that always gets a knowing nod from the audience because we’ve learned that this is how the guilty often react — deny, deny, deny. The more recent formulation is: “Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations.”

Although such behavior is painfully obvious and almost always futile, it has become an active public relations tactic at the Discovery Institute, and especially at their Center for Science and Culture."
--The Curmudgeon

103 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:25:00pm

re: #83 Sharmuta

I'm simply astounded by the arrogance of Man to define God and His abilities. It's more than a bit blasphemous, don't you think?

More than trying to promogulate a certain opinion, they are incredibly FULL of themselves. It seems to me that we are called to humility, among other things. Insisting that I'm so special that God must have designed me (almost personally) smacks of extreme hubris.

104 rawmuse  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:26:02pm

re: #101 irish rose

Speaking of asshats, I haven't seen Lance around these parts lately... anyone?

Banned. couple months ago.

105 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:26:06pm

re: #101 irish rose

Speaking of asshats, I haven't seen Lance around these parts lately... anyone?

Went off the deep end on a ID thread and got the stick.

106 brownmear  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:26:19pm

ID tries to get religion in schools through law and legislatures. Success 0, attempts whatever.

Radical islamists continue to kill with impunity. "Success" thousands dead, attempts whatever.

How about a new topic where ID tries once again? The most important thing in life is to keep Christianity out of school.

I am not saying it is wrong, I agree with separation of government and religion, I am just thinking that a daily discussion of ID is missing the original message.

Continue to fight ID for a better tomorrow!

107 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:26:32pm

re: #97 gozza

But most of the ID stuff has nothing to do with that ?

You just outed yourself as having not been paying attention. Please do some reading:

Wedge Strategy
Phillip Johnson
Money Quote:

Johnson calls his movement "The Wedge." The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."

108 hazzyday  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:26:33pm

re: #84 buzzsawmonkey

At the ends of infinite and finite science arguments religion does come into play. Not being a Methodists or a Buddhists. But wheter the fundamental elements that are observed were intelligently created. My physics professor used science fiction in high school to make that point. He also used a pool table to demonsrate momentum. At one time science and religion were of the same hat. This separation is a recent phenomena.

I would put the ID discussion into textbooks in the last chapter on fringe theories and critique them. This is to stop the whole textbook from being infused with ID.

109 Teacake!  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:28:35pm

Thanks I hope! LOL I thought it was a romantic love letter, but then it could be guess and just as depressing. She is a major nasty bitch but he likes her and has compared her to something beautiful like stars.

110 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:28:38pm

re: #106 brownmear

That's a long variation of the 'stop talking about this' theme.

111 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:28:44pm
112 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:29:53pm

re: #105 jcm

Who else left? I've been out of the loop for a while... heavy workload and all that.

113 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:32:19pm

re: #96 reno911

"un-inquisitive"?

FYI, I quoted the author of the story, not DI.

un-inquisitive indeed.

Sorry. I didn't make my grammatical reference clear.

which sound fine to the un-inquisitive layman

This wasn't referring to you. It was generic. Yes, you're inquisitive. That's good.

BTW, see the links in Sharmuta's #107 for the background data.

114 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:33:23pm

re: #52 kalvinb

"in voting to make evidence against evolution part of the curriculum"

Shouldn't that already be part of the curriculum?

Sal: but there IS no credible evidenxce againast Evolution.

Teaching the supernatural in a science classroom is wrong but so is teaching Evolution as unquestionable fact.

Sal: But it is a fact that evolution happens; the theory part comes in when people discuss the details of the mechanism ( the parts about mutation, natural selection, and DNA as the physical substrate vehicle are beyond serious dispute).

That would avoid silly articles such as

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

which claims

1. Absolutely closed systems do not exist even under ideal laboratory conditions

Sal: Give the next (and only other) sentence in the paragraph: Nevertheless, many rocks approximate closed systems so closely that multiple radiometric dating methods produce consistent results, within 1 percent of each other.


and then right after

2. Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are

And once a gain, include the rest of the paragraph: Most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, which give a consistent date within 1 and 3 percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount.

Or maybe that was due to the lack of a logic course.

Sal: Actually, what you see here is how to lie with manipulatively cribbed quotes; I have previously seen this done with Charles Darwin himself, concerning the evolution of the eye.

When lizards are "evolving" in 30 years and bacteria are "evolving" in 20, maybe it's time to question the validity and accuracy of our dating methods.

Sal: Maybe people need to realize that a transitional cusp hits a species now and then.

The only one I learned about in HS was carbon dating which I only later found out was so terrible that it had to be calibrated by tree rings in order to give accurate results.

Sal: this claim was disputed in the last thread, but if carbon dating could indeed be calibrated with tree rings (which give one number of years a tree has lived to the year), it would be interesting. However, fossilized tree rings do not tell one how long the tree has been dead, and living tree rings cannot be carbon dated.

Talking about all the "assumptions" that evolution relies on and their significance without the BS like Talk Origins provided would be useful knowledge as well.

Sal: Evolutionary theory doesn't rely on assumptions; it relies on empirical evidence gained via observation, experimentation, and measurement, which is why it belongs in high school science class. ID relies on a dogmatic religious and metaphysical assumption, which is empirically untestable, which is why it doesn't belong in public igh school science class. A bit repetitive, I know, but I wanted to state it in terms that were beyond linguistic misconstrual.

If you want to teach "millions of years" in a science classroom then you should provide the tools to the students to do the calculations themselves and see how they can be affected by trace amounts of certain elements.

Sal: Links like this?
[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]
[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]
How old do YOU think the earth is, or the Universe? 6000 years? Or is the earth 6 billion years old, and the universe 14 billion years old, as the red shift in the Big Bang echo shows?

And they have actually found the rock formations in Africa and South America that were once connected, before continental drift allowed the Atlantic Ocean to develop between them. These rock formations are made of the same minerals, and even contain the same kinds of fossils. I suppose that all happened in 6000 years, too, ayy? And whatever do we do with the written records we have that date to more than 6000 years ago, not to mention all those nifty tools, homes, and cave art?

115 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:36:58pm

re: #64 reno911

If I understand the debate, ID is just religion in disguise. And discussing religion in a science class is a bad thing. I get that part.

What I don't get is that the ID proponents (DI) apparently originate in Seattle. Seattle? Seattle? Seattle is now a hot-bed of religion? Hmmm..

Also, why is "debating whether high-school texts should be required to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution” a bad thing? Shouldn't we be searching for the truth?

Yes, we should be searching for the truth, but that truth should not, in high school science class, include empirically untestable assertions of religions dogma. They can inform us concerning where evolutionary theory still could use refinement and elaboration not one whit.

116 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:37:21pm

"There are multiple methods of dating, as we've posted them many times already. They include krypton, argon, carbon, tree rings, surrounding sediment, ice cores and meteorlogical events that put specific markers in the strata across the world. Scientists using only one method get laughed at by other scientists. Please get a clue."

And how many of those can be applied to the same piece of rock?

How long does it take for 1cm of rock to deposit?

How long does it take for 1cm of ice to deposit?

I'm aware of the multiple methods. I'm also aware that they all require a lot of assumptions.

Say I have a jar full of various types of rocks and I shake it around a bit. How long will it take before they seperate and form layers. Can I then postulate that the rock on top must have been younger than the rock on the bottom of the jar?

117 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:37:33pm

re: #83 Sharmuta

I'm simply astounded by the arrogance of Man to define God and His abilities. It's more than a bit blasphemous, don't you think?

That is very true.

From my perspective as a very "fundy" Christian, most of mainstream Christian teaching is very shallow. It's very easy to bring our preconceived notions to scripture.

Twice in the gospels this in mentioned, "unless you change and become like little children" and "Blessed are the poor in spirit,.."

The first tells is to be child like in innocence, will to believe, without any previous experience or ideas. The second, the "poor" is rendered in Greek as destitute, without anything in our spirit.

This does not mean to accept any teaching. It means when coming to God the ultimate source, be open, blank.

Most christian teaching misses that, it misses the spiritual aspect for a knowledge aspect.

118 right_on_target  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:38:20pm

re: #52 kalvinb

I agree only with this ONE statement:
"Teaching the supernatural in a science classroom is wrong but so is teaching Evolution as unquestionable fact."

Evolution should be discussed and questioned because where will our future biologists, petrophysicsts, paleontologists, come from if our young generation don't INQUIRE, QUESTION and EXPLORE.

Some of those questions result in better analyses and novel approaches to the mysteries (ignorance) of science.

119 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:39:38pm

re: #112 irish rose

Who else left? I've been out of the loop for a while... heavy workload and all that.

SongandDanceMan called out Charles on a thread.

SavageNation had a very bad day personally and went on a specific threatening rants.

Babbazee and Charles had a feud over a deleted post, she has been banned but hasn't been back.

120 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:40:25pm

re: #91 canerican

I know I said I wasn't going to comment anymore, and this is my last on any creationism thread. I won't debate, but I will say that if you believe that creationism should taught is school, what better way that to give money?

I just sent them $20.

so much for bold,dramatic exits...

121 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:40:57pm

re: #99 Sharmuta

See anything now?

122 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:41:15pm

re: #115 Salamantis

Yes, we should be searching for the truth, but that truth should not, in high school science class, include empirically untestable assertions of religions dogma. They can inform us concerning where evolutionary theory still could use refinement and elaboration not one whit.

(-:
Fact & Truth
I don't have the script in front of me, but early in the Indy "Last Crusade" movie, Indy's lecturing his archeology students. He says something like ... archaeology is the search for fact, not truth ... if it's truth you're after, "Dr. Tyree's Philosophy class is just down the hall."

The ID'ers would like us to ignore the difference.

123 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:41:38pm

re: #121 Slumbering Behemoth

You have musical nic link candy!

124 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:42:54pm

re: #119 jcm

I think MamaWinger is in self imposed exile over at Babba's place.

125 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:43:17pm

re: #116 KalvinB

Say I have a jar full of various types of rocks and I shake it around a bit. How long will it take before they seperate and form layers. Can I then postulate that the rock on top must have been younger than the rock on the bottom of the jar?

Deposition of geologic layers is NOTHING like rocks or dirt in a jar. That's not apples and oranges -- it's grapes and railroad locomotives.

126 thedopefishlives  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:44:10pm

re: #88 Slumbering Behemoth

I dinged you up just to irritate you. :) Are you this critter's namesake?

I suppose it behooves me to respond. I'm not irritated, I just hope y'all aren't irritated with me. And I did take my name after said creature.

127 Charles  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:44:46pm

re: #119 jcm

SongandDanceMan called out Charles on a thread.

SavageNation had a very bad day personally and went on a specific threatening rants.

Babbazee and Charles had a feud over a deleted post, she has been banned but hasn't been back.

No feud here - BZ hasn't been banned.

128 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:44:50pm

re: #124 Killgore Trout

I think MamaWinger is in self imposed exile over at Babba's place.

That's right haven't seen her for awhile.

129 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:45:20pm

First of all, if you believe in God, you believe in ID. You may not see as these people do, but you believe that God created the heavens and the Earth. Seriously, how could you believe in God and NOT believe He created everything? (Xenu, excluded, of course)

That said, no matter how whacked out these guys are, Don McLeroy, Steve Abrams and whoever else, do we really want laws that forbid even talking about the merits of evolution? Isn't challenging the merits of theory one of the basic principles of the Scientific method?

Personally, I believe in evolution, but I don't want those that would challenge its merits silenced by law. Let there be open discussion. Is there anything wrong with that?

130 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:45:20pm

re: #127 Charles

No feud here - BZ hasn't been banned.

Opps my bad, should have been hasn't been banned.

131 NonNativeTexan  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:45:22pm

re: #81 Sharmuta
We got into a discussion last night concerning the influence
of Judeo-Christian values upon this country's founding.
Sharmuta. Did some research, enjoyed it actually.
I think I'll stick with my original statement that
George Washington was a religious man.
[Link: www.yale.edu...]
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor

[Link: www.yale.edu...]

[Link: www.yale.edu...]
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

[Link: www.archives.gov...]

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.

132 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:45:39pm

re: #116 KalvinB

"There are multiple methods of dating, as we've posted them many times already. They include krypton, argon, carbon, tree rings, surrounding sediment, ice cores and meteorlogical events that put specific markers in the strata across the world. Scientists using only one method get laughed at by other scientists. Please get a clue."

And how many of those can be applied to the same piece of rock?

How long does it take for 1cm of rock to deposit?

How long does it take for 1cm of ice to deposit?

I'm aware of the multiple methods. I'm also aware that they all require a lot of assumptions.

Say I have a jar full of various types of rocks and I shake it around a bit. How long will it take before they seperate and form layers. Can I then postulate that the rock on top must have been younger than the rock on the bottom of the jar?

The earth's not six thousand years old, get over it. Here's a page with what they use to date just archeological sites, some of which are well over six thousand years old.

133 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:45:46pm
134 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:46:26pm

re: #77 kalvinb

"Where the creationists fail is their inability to allow that God set the whole evolutionary train in motion and stepped in to tweak from time to time. "

Seems odd that God would create something, wait billions of years for it to mature and then stick his nose in it for the last 10 thousand years.

Sal: And so you are the arbiter of what is and is not odd deific behavior now?

Also seems odd that if God is all powerful that he wouldn't just create everything in the mature state and give it the ability to adapt to a changing world in ways we're just finally being able to understand.

Sal: but we know that this didn't happen, due to thousands of identical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences, found in identical locations in the genomes of humans and our closest primate relatives.

It's a bit ridiculous that this whole debate is simply because dating methods are easily prone to astronomical errors. Especially considering that lizards have evolved in 30 years and bacteria in 20.

Sal: It's a bit ridiculous that some people willfully ignore lead-pipe cinch evidence because it causes cognitive dissonance with their religious convictions.

Maybe it's time the evolutionists starting re-evaluating how long things actually take.

Sal: Maybe it's time the creationists actually began, for the first time, honestly evaluating the Everest of evidence for evolutionary theory, and the lack of even a molehill of evidence against it.

135 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:46:34pm

re: #123 Sharmuta

Thank you!

re: #126 thedopefishlives

I'm not irritated at you, yet. :) Cool nic, though. That critter has a lot of history.

136 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:46:41pm

re: #117 jcm

Most christian teaching misses that, it misses the spiritual aspect for a knowledge aspect.

Hear Hear!

We hunger for certainty. Being like a child is scary as hell ... until the lyrics of Amazing Grace sink into one's soul.

137 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:47:04pm

re: #119 jcm

SongandDanceMan called out Charles on a thread.

SavageNation had a very bad day personally and went on a specific threatening rants.

Babbazee and Charles had a feud over a deleted post, she has been banned but hasn't been back.

I don't think babba was banned...

138 Charles  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:48:18pm

True believer, this one.

139 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:49:11pm

re: #129 ArcherB

That said, no matter how whacked out these guys are, Don McLeroy, Steve Abrams and whoever else, do we really want laws that forbid even talking about the merits of evolution? Isn't challenging the merits of theory one of the basic principles of the Scientific method?

But that is not the Discovery Institutes agenda. Read some of the material provided by our fellow Lizards and you will realize that.

140 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:50:11pm

re: #129 ArcherB

First of all, if you believe in God, you believe in ID. You may not see as these people do, but you believe that God created the heavens and the Earth. Seriously, how could you believe in God and NOT believe He created everything? (Xenu, excluded, of course)

That said, no matter how whacked out these guys are, Don McLeroy, Steve Abrams and whoever else, do we really want laws that forbid even talking about the merits of evolution? Isn't challenging the merits of theory one of the basic principles of the Scientific method?

Personally, I believe in evolution, but I don't want those that would challenge its merits silenced by law. Let there be open discussion. Is there anything wrong with that?

Creationism and intelligent design (lower case) yes. I also believe in science, the astrophysical record, and the geological record.

The ID out of the Disco Institute is both bad science and bad faith. There objectives have a load of unintended consequences waiting to happen, it's bad policy.

141 brownmear  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:50:22pm

re: #110 jaunte

That's a long variation of the 'stop talking about this' theme.

No, this is a question of what I come here for. I have come for a lot of years to hear about extremist radicalist islamists that would kill me for being a non-believer. I have come here to read their plans and actions and the MSM's attempts to cover up those plans and actions.

Do you believe that the potential of a school board allowing ID in one school somewhere (until a higher court rejects it) is more of a threat than the Imam down the road preaching death to infidels in a tax subsidized mosque?

Sorry, ID has not made it into multiple schools because of the courts. It just seems like a "topic du jour" and I am tired of seeing it here. Yes I can start my own blog, yes Charles can put whatever he wants here, his blog and all. But it seemed like a much better blog before the whole ID thing. Squash them and move on, I think there are bigger fish to fry!

142 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:50:37pm

re: #129 ArcherB

Personally, I believe in evolution, but I don't want those that would challenge its merits silenced by law. Let there be open discussion. Is there anything wrong with that?

I think you are obfuscating what the issue is. "Open discussion" does not mean we can sneak religion into science class. Any debate in science class should be centered in scientific term only.

143 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:50:45pm

#119 jcm

SongandDanceMan called out Charles on a thread.

Kinda glad I missed that one.

144 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:50:55pm

"And they have actually found the rock formations in Africa and South America that were once connected, before continental drift allowed the Atlantic Ocean to develop between them. These rock formations are made of the same minerals, and even contain the same kinds of fossils. I suppose that all happened in 6000 years, too, ayy? And whatever do we do with the written records we have that date to more than 6000 years ago, not to mention all those nifty tools, homes, and cave art?"

Who said the earth was 6000 years old?

There's a tree they found that is around 8000 years old.

How do you know that nothing happenened that would have sped up the process that moved the continents to their current location?

The distance from New York to Spain is 3591 miles. You can't think of any event that would have sped that trip up in the time the earth has been around?

Can you prove the ocean bottom has always been at the bottom of the ocean as deep as it is now? Has the earth always been 1/3 land?

145 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:51:07pm
146 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:51:13pm

re: #137 joecitizen

I don't think babba was banned...

I know, I blame out of control typing fingers, bad finger, bad finger!

147 cerclaman  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:51:47pm

The whole ID debate illustrates the central weakness of a government run monopoly on education. If people want to teach their children that the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese, that's their business as long they don't force it down my kid's throat. Because the state has a monopoly on public education, people are not free to send their kids to the school of their choice, but must endure one size fits all education. In that environment, people with strong beliefs on what their children should be taught have no choice but to force their ideas on everyone to ensure their children recieve the education they desire. If, on the other hand, such people were free to send their children to a private school that shared their notions on education, they would leave everyone else alone.

The real solution is not to ban ID or include ID, but to give parents a real choice on where to educate their children.

148 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:52:38pm

The people who come here saying that this isn't an important issue amuse me. It's the Discovery Institute that's made it an issue, and most of you don't know who's pulling those strings. Reminds me of the "don't look behind the curtain" scene in the wizard of Oz.

DI and Howard Ahmanson could be spending their time and money on different things, instead they choose to attack Science and Evolution during a critical election when our country is at war, the energy crisis is real, people are beginning to starve around the world. Did you ever look at that angle?

149 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:52:59pm

"Are you aware that certain methods of dating apply only to certain things, but not to others? For example, carbon 14, about which you were displaying your abysmal ignorance on some prior thread, works only with organic materials. It does not work with rocks--or even with inorganic material such as pottery or bronze artifacts."

That's exactly my point.

So if I find a rock, how many dating methods can I use on that piece of rock to determine its age?

150 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:52:59pm

Any Whitworth grads with us tonight?

"So, in the summer of 2001, I became a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which worked out of an odd, corridor-shaped office on the third floor of an older office building overlooking the main post office. Chapman had a private office at one end, Agnew at the other. The rest of us peons sat between them, at metal desks cluttered with paper and PCs. Mine was a few feet from the copy machine, which seemed to run 'round the clock, spewing out paper dealing with technology or transportation or, yes, evolution.

At the other end of the hall were the Science and Culture folks — a half dozen enthusiastic twentysomethings, some of them recent graduates of Whitworth College (now Whitworth University). They appeared to be very busy at whatever they were doing, and I didn't ask.

I did, however, enjoy chatting with Philip Gold, the curmudgeonly and dry-witted military writer who worked nearby. We were entertained by the ID kids' grumblings toward the dreaded "Darwinists" – a term that seemed to have replaced "reds" in the conservative lexicon. Gold offered an ID motto: "God does not play dice with the Universe; He plays Scrabble.
[Link: www.crosscut.com...]

151 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:53:49pm

re: #141 brownmear

"Don't look behind that curtain!"

152 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:53:58pm

re: #131 NonNativeTexan

A man who believes in God and respects religion is not necessarily the same thing as a religious man.

Please go back and read this:

Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later.

153 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:54:48pm

re: #139 Slumbering Behemoth

But that is not the Discovery Institutes agenda. Read some of the material provided by our fellow Lizards and you will realize that.

It doesn't matter what their agenda is. When they start handing out Bibles in science class, bust them and throw them out. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a theory. That should be required for ALL THEORIES! If evolution is as sound as we all know it is, then there shouldn't be a problem.

Besides, arguing the agenda, or idea behind an act is EXACTLY what code pink does when talking about Iraq, for example. Don't they say things like:

We know the President said he went into Iraq for WMD's, to liberate the people of Iraq and because Iraq could be a threat. But we all know the TRUE AGENDA was to grab the oil and make is oil buddies rich!

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you try to guess the True Agenda of these guys?

154 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:55:20pm

Ah, here they come.

155 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:55:20pm

I'm a Christian, and I have no problem at all with these discussions.
I think they're fascinating.

156 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:55:26pm

re: #144 KalvinB

Actually the ocean bottom is sinking, the great lakes bed is rising, and yes, they can prove it.

157 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:55:52pm

Oh noes, another ID thread?!?!

Gays-In-Film Connection: In 1938's Bringing Up Baby, Cary Grant took a break from playing house with Randolph Scott* to portray a fossil-hunting bone-craving paleontologist who sometimes enjoys wearing frilly satin nightgowns.

* Or rather, ♪♫ RAAAAN-DOLPH SCO-O-OTT!! ♪♫

158 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:56:33pm

re: #147 cerclaman

The whole ID debate illustrates the central weakness of a government run monopoly on education. If people want to teach their children that the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese, that's their business as long they don't force it down my kid's throat. Because the state has a monopoly on public education, people are not free to send their kids to the school of their choice, but must endure one size fits all education. In that environment, people with strong beliefs on what their children should be taught have no choice but to force their ideas on everyone to ensure their children recieve the education they desire. If, on the other hand, such people were free to send their children to a private school that shared their notions on education, they would leave everyone else alone.

The real solution is not to ban ID or include ID, but to give parents a real choice on where to educate their children.

That brings up the issue of getting kids educated in the sciences so they can compete in the world of today. Which is based on science as we know it today.

The thing is, and something I say over, and over again. There is a gap, a space between faith and science an huge space of UNKOWN. Both sides, faith more so that science try to project into that space.

If we could reliable count on kids being taught to discriminate, differentiate between faith and science. They it would be as much of an issue. The problem is those pushing hardest to get ID taught do not respect the boundaries.

159 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:56:46pm

re: #149 KalvinB

See the links above. You don't just date the rock, you date the surrounds as well.

160 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:56:58pm

re: #157 Throbert McGee

bone-craving paleontologist


*snort*

161 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:57:09pm
162 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:57:14pm

re: #141 brownmear

If you think those topics are important, start talking about them and start posting some links. You could do that.

163 NonNativeTexan  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:57:30pm

re: #152 Sharmuta

Yes, I read it a couple of times. I don't agree with his conclusions.
He implies that GW was just using it to bring along and
inspire the country. I happen to think GW actually believed what he was
saying. We can really never know which was actually the case.

164 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:57:38pm

re: #142 Sharmuta

I think you are obfuscating what the issue is. "Open discussion" does not mean we can sneak religion into science class. Any debate in science class should be centered in scientific term only.

Agreed! And when they "sneak" religion in, throw it and them out. But don't completely ban discussion over fear that someone might say the word "God" in science class.

165 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:58:13pm

A theory is one thing. A scientific theory is something entirely different. The two aren't really even related. I have a theory that otters are more highly evolved than man, but since I have no scientific evidence whatsoever to back it up, it shouldn't be taught in class.

(Think about it, we work hard all our life. They are tool users also, but all they do is eat, sleep, play, and screw. Who's more evolved.)

166 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:58:31pm
167 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:58:36pm

re: #97 gozza

I dont understand why there is so much angst against teaching that there are MAJOR problems with Darwinism? Not talking about teaching biblical young-earth style creationism - that`s just silly. But most of the ID stuff has nothing to do with that ?

#16 Ojoe, posted this excellent link. Very thought provoking.
[Link: www.plumbbobblog.com...]

Extreme belief in Darwinism (and the associated hatred of ID) seems to be just as "religious" to me as the creationists !

Yeah, riiiight, shuuuure...all I need is to follow the lead of a guy who has 'Intelligent Design' in his Topical Index, but no 'Evolution.' That's gotta be one unbiased and obbjective source.

As to all these 'major problems' you refer to: would you please furnish me with a single empirically testable assertion that, if found true, would be problematical for evolutionary theory, and which has indeed been evidentiarily supported? I didn't think so.

Scientists and educated lay people don't have to believe in evolutionary theory, since they can know that it is supported by empirical evidence. It is IDers who must believe in their religious contention, for no empirical evidence exists for it whatsoever - nor can it.

168 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 6:59:11pm

re: #159 Thanos

See the links above. You don't just date the rock, you date the surrounds as well.

And you also date the rocks family. And if the rocks sister doesn't like you she will talk you down to the rocks parents.

169 vibemanjoe  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:00:12pm

May I suggest something:

Let's teach science in science class.

I know it is is a radical suggestion, but we should try it.

We can discuss documented observations. We can perform pre-designed experiments and confirm the observations. We can study the experimentation and observations of the great scientists of the past. We can design our own experiments, and make observations from them.

If we try to move our study into aspects of philosophy and away from science, then we throw it over the wall into the philosophy department and discuss it there until we are blue in the face and screaming at each other.

Philosophy can sneak into the teaching of good and bad scientists, and they should be open to searching out these foreign inclusions, cutting them out and throwing them over the wall with great fanfare. If they show a great effort to maintain the purity of their area of study, some, but not likely all, of those that would wish to disagree with the valid science will be more likely to seriously consider the conclusions.

Make the proponents if ID justify their study as following traditional scientific methods. If they can not, then ask if they need help in throwing their philosophical topics over the wall. If the scientists have been doing this, then there will be less resistance from the ID folks.

Will everyone be happy? Of course not. We are talking people with advanced degrees and matching egos. But, maybe we can at least begin to purify the study of science once again.

Philosophy is the natural home for the study of religious topics in an academic environment. Let's make sure that is where it finds its home.

170 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:00:20pm

re: #153 ArcherB

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you try to guess the True Agenda of these guys?

Sorry, but there very little guess work involved in figuring out the agenda when the father of the movement is on record saying things like:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."

Johnson calls his movement "The Wedge." The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."

Furthermore- would you scoff at discussion of the islamist agenda on this website?

171 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:00:54pm

re: #168 Mars Needs Neocons

And you also date the rocks family. And if the rocks sister doesn't like you she will talk you down to the rocks parents.

And if the rock's from Pakistan you better be the right class, religion, and tribe, or the rock you are dating could get crushed.

172 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:01:33pm

re: #129 ArcherB

First of all, if you believe in God, you believe in ID. You may not see as these people do, but you believe that God created the heavens and the Earth. Seriously, how could you believe in God and NOT believe He created everything?

With respect -- be careful, VERY careful.

You made two statements, (1) belief in God and (2) belief in ID, and then you equated them.

I believe most strongly in God, and in God as the Creator, but I absolutely reject ID. I believe that God could easily have sparked a Big Bang, knowing full well that processes would form, that evolution would occur. I refuse sit be meekly while it's implied that because I don't believe in ID, I therefore don't believe in God.

/going to sit quietly in the corner and bite my #&$% tongue

173 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:01:46pm

re: #153 ArcherB

Bullshit, son. No one here is "guessing" at the DI's agenda, we have it straight from them in black and white.

How many times must that link be posted before people stop trying to obfuscate? [rhetorical]

174 thedopefishlives  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:02:52pm

re: #173 Slumbering Behemoth


How many times must that link be posted before people stop trying to obfuscate? [rhetorical]

Over NINE THOUSAND.

/ducks

175 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:02:53pm

"Maybe it's time the creationists actually began, for the first time, honestly evaluating the Everest of evidence for evolutionary theory, and the lack of even a molehill of evidence against it."

What mountain of evidence do you have that everything started with a single spark of life?

It's not the ability to change that's in question. It's the length of time and the relationships between species. And where it all began.

Once you take simplistic "things change" out of the argument for "Evolution" you suddenly have a distinct lack of facts that not even IDers disagree with and whole pile of assumptions about relationships between species and timeframes. Which is really what Evolution is all about. And where there are arguments and debates.

To say the debate is closed because we know that things change is a pretty ignorant view of what Evolution entails.

176 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:02:58pm
If evolution is as sound as we all know it is,

There is a strong body of evidence to support evolution in the plant and animal world.

But human evolution has not yet been proven, and therefore remains theory.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

177 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:03:21pm

re: #52 kalvinb


1. Absolutely closed systems do not exist even under ideal laboratory conditions

and then right after

2. Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are

Or maybe that was due to the lack of a logic course.


Au contraire, stupid strawmen like the one you just posted are not logical. "Closed to outside contamination" is not the same as an "absolutely closed system," since the latter would also have to exclude thermal or other forms of radiation and mechanical stress.

When lizards are "evolving" in 30 years and bacteria are "evolving" in 20, maybe it's time to question the validity and accuracy of our dating methods.

The only one I learned about in HS was carbon dating which I only later found out was so terrible that it had to be calibrated by tree rings in order to give accurate results.

For about the millionth friggin' time in my career as a geoscientist, radio-carbon IS NOT used to date rocks, nor is it the source for dates in the millions and billions of years. Any dating method, or method of measurement at all, must be calibrated against some known measurement before it will yield accurate results.
This is like saying that your watch is unreliable because it was ultimately calibrated against the stars. Your statement is frankly gibberish and I suspect that the notorious Jack Chick is the source.

I suggest you do a little research on things like potassium/argon dating. I do this kind of testing myself, I know FIRST HAND that it works, I am not taking anyone's word for it and I am not part of some evil global conspiracy to undermine Christianity.
Stop believing stupid Jack Chick propaganda and check the facts for yourself.

Talking about all the "assumptions" that evolution relies on and their significance without the BS like Talk Origins provided would be useful knowledge as well.

If you want to teach "millions of years" in a science classroom then you should provide the tools to the students to do the calculations themselves and see how they can be affected by trace amounts of certain elements.

I do that every day and most of my students understand it. Argon gas is an inert element. It cannot infiltrate a solid rock once the rock has solidified and it cannot remain in the rock when the rock is molten. Even if infiltration were possible, the dating is actually based on ratios of several isotopes and the contamination would be immediately obvious. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, you do know that multiple samples are used from the same rock mass before a date is assigned, don't you? If contamination and mishandling were skewing the results, how would they act uniformly over a whole set of samples?
The argon we find in rocks was produced inside the rock by radioactive decay. This process, too, has been calibrated against known sources, lava flows of known historical date for instance.

178 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:03:28pm

re: #165 Mars Needs Neocons

(-:
Their life must be otter bliss.
Let's hear it for the otters!

179 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:03:57pm

Howard Ahmanson is the guy behind this, as well as almost all of the other social conservative issues.

[Link: www.latimes.com...]

180 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:04:48pm

re: #171 Thanos

And if the rock's from Pakistan you better be the right class, religion, and tribe, or the rock you are dating could get crushed.

Or stoned.

181 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:05:04pm

re: #159 Thanos

See the links above. You don't just date the rock, you date the surrounds as well.

You also date more than 1 isotope. Different isotopes have different half lives, and can be used for different date ranges. Isotopes have overlaps in ranges. When a preliminary date is in certain range, the sample is remeasured with a different isotope which can be measured in that range. If the date can be confirmed. If a discrepancy occurs, more measurements can be made.

182 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:05:29pm

John Derbyshire:

"It is not a coincidence that the current strain of creationism exemplified by Expelled gives off a strong whiff of postmodernism: ruthless power-holders imposing their own version of reality, etc.
...“When the religious Right adopts the epistemology of the multicultural Left — that truth is relative — there goes the Enlightenment”


[Link: corner.nationalreview.com...]

183 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:05:47pm

re: #16 Ojoe

Wrong. Genes do affect morphology, particularly bone morphogenic proteins (BMPs). What would microbiologists have to do with eukaryotes anyway?

184 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:05:52pm

"Actually the ocean bottom is sinking, the great lakes bed is rising, and yes, they can prove it."

And can you prove it's been sinking at a constant rate?

One of the biggest assumptions that evolutionists make is that despite all this change from a single cell organism to life today, the earth has always been 1/3 land and the continents have always looks the same.

What if there was no ocean as we know it when the world began?

185 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:06:29pm

"For about the millionth friggin' time in my career as a geoscientist, radio-carbon IS NOT used to date rocks, nor is it the source for dates in the millions and billions of years. "

I never claimed either of those things.

186 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:06:54pm

re: #164 ArcherB

Agreed! And when they "sneak" religion in, throw it and them out. But don't completely ban discussion over fear that someone might say the word "God" in science class.

Again- I think you're obfuscating the issue, and I'm starting to think it's intentional. Please- tell where a ban on debating science in scientific terms has been implemented. The problem here is a group of fundamentalist Christians trying to use religion to argue against science in public classrooms. It's a violation of the Establishment Clause and a violation of the scientific method.

187 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:07:49pm

re: #184 KalvinB

Oh fercryinoutlloud- learn to use the quote and/or reply features.

188 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:08:37pm

re: #175 KalvinB

"Maybe it's time the creationists actually began, for the first time, honestly evaluating the Everest of evidence for evolutionary theory, and the lack of even a molehill of evidence against it."

What mountain of evidence do you have that everything started with a single spark of life?

It's not the ability to change that's in question. It's the length of time and the relationships between species. And where it all began.

Once you take simplistic "things change" out of the argument for "Evolution" you suddenly have a distinct lack of facts that not even IDers disagree with and whole pile of assumptions about relationships between species and timeframes. Which is really what Evolution is all about. And where there are arguments and debates.

To say the debate is closed because we know that things change is a pretty ignorant view of what Evolution entails.

Evolution is about how life changes over time through various means including natural selection and genetic drift. Some of it comes from viral infections, some of it comes from cosmic radiation. I know all about cosmic raditation -- living in the far north it caused my hair and most of my friend's hair to grey earlier than the general population living further south.

Most evolutionary biologists are going to tell you they don't know exactly how life started, so what's your point?

189 jcm  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:08:38pm

Love to stick around...

But life must go on....

Have FUN!

Debate is FUN!

190 Charles  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:09:37pm

Oh brother.

191 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:10:02pm

So Charles... how many batches of chips and cheese (and bottles of painkiller) have you gone through monitoring the ID threads now?

I prefer the popcorn/Zantec combo, myself...

192 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:10:03pm

re: #174 thedopefishlives

Now I think you're being optimistic.

193 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:10:49pm

re: #184 KalvinB

One of the biggest assumptions that evolutionists make is that despite all this change from a single cell organism to life today, the earth has always been 1/3 land and the continents have always looks the same.

What in th' HELL are you talking about?!?! Maybe I misunderstand you, but this isn't a straw man, this is utter gibberish. I've NEVER heard an "evolutionist" claim that.

194 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:11:18pm

"The argon we find in rocks was produced inside the rock by radioactive decay. This process, too, has been calibrated against known sources, lava flows of known historical date for instance."

K-Ar only alledgedly works for things that are 100,000 years old or older. Do we have written record of a lava flow that happened 100,000 years ago?

"It cannot infiltrate a solid rock once the rock has solidified and it cannot remain in the rock when the rock is molten"

Really? Because that was one of the assumptions that is known to be wrong so the average starting K-Ar ratio is used to correct for errors in dating rocks with the K-Ar method.

You must work with magic rocks that have a perfect 1:0 ratio.

195 brownmear  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:11:24pm

re: #151 Thanos

"Don't look behind that curtain!"

Ok, maybe I should have said "Squash them and move on"

Oh yeah, I did.

I agree with not teaching ID in schools.

Now your point is?

196 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:11:27pm

re: #129 ArcherB

First of all, if you believe in God, you believe in ID.

No, that's not the case -- you can believe in God, believe that God created the universe over billions of years using "random" evolution as His preferred means of generating biological diversity, believe that humans have an immortal soul bestowed by God and distinct from our evolved brains, yet still reject Intelligent Design as a so-called scientific theory.

That's why Charles keeps posting the ID threads, because in Charles's opinion, ID is largely a con game run by dyed-in-the-wool Creationists who count on the fact that many people of faith will confuse ID with other forms of "theistic evolution." Which means that IDers are playing other religious people for suckers.

197 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:12:01pm
198 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:14:02pm

re: #195 brownmear

Ok, maybe I should have said "Squash them and move on"

Oh yeah, I did.

I agree with not teaching ID in schools.

Now your point is?

That they are nowhere near squashed yet, that they are a small minority of anti-constitutionalist reconstructionists exerting undue influence on the religious right. That they could be focused on attacking the marxists in the teaching colleges, but instead they choose to attack science and reason.

199 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:14:44pm

re: #116 KalvinB

"There are multiple methods of dating, as we've posted them many times already. They include krypton, argon, carbon, tree rings, surrounding sediment, ice cores and meteorlogical events that put specific markers in the strata across the world. Scientists using only one method get laughed at by other scientists. Please get a clue."

And how many of those can be applied to the same piece of rock?

Sal: If it's a big enough chunk, a lot of them

How long does it take for 1cm of rock to deposit?

How long does it take for 1cm of ice to deposit?

Sal: It depends upon conditions, but those can be checked for by comparing adjacent strata. Ice floes and sediment beds have layers just like trees have rings. And of course when, say, a large volcanic eruption happens, or a major tsunami, or a sizeable meteor strikes, they leave widespread similar materials that may be used for precise dating purposes.

I'm aware of the multiple methods. I'm also aware that they all require a lot of assumptions.

Sal: They mutually verify each other. It's kind of like Macbeth did in Shakespeare: Is that a dagger I see before me? Let me reach out and touch it, to verify. Works for the Bard, worls in science. Multiple independent verification methods, when they hone in on a single age range, are only deniable by the willfully self-deceived.

Say I have a jar full of various types of rocks and I shake it around a bit. How long will it take before they seperate and form layers. Can I then postulate that the rock on top must have been younger than the rock on the bottom of the jar?

Sal: But in the earth's crust, we aren't faced with discrete and separate rocks rattling around in a jar; we are faced with solid laters of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary strata, and they don't just up and reverse position by the square mile or hundred, even during earthquakes (which, by the way, happen only in some areas of the globe - where tectonic plates meet and stress faults are created - not all). But then again, plate tectonics is a science that has to do with a very old earth, so let's just pretend that the San Andreas Fault is one of those contentions that require a lot of assumptions...

200 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:16:54pm
201 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:17:02pm

re: #199 Salamantis

uhh ... he doesn't know what plate tectonics is. I don't think he's ever heard of it.

202 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:17:08pm

I could be mistaken, but I think KalvinB is referring to this.

203 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:18:13pm

re: #198 Thanos

That they are nowhere near squashed yet, that they are a small minority of anti-constitutionalist reconstructionists exerting undue influence on the religious right. That they could be focused on attacking the marxists in the teaching colleges, but instead they choose to attack science and reason.

And they've been at it for over 20 years, with no signs of giving up no matter how many times they've been "squashed".

204 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:18:24pm

re: #200 buzzsawmonkey

IT'S ALL SAN ANDREAS' FAULT! BIG SAN ANDREAS IS RIPPING US OFF!


OK, you.
This is a serious discussion ;).

205 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:18:38pm

"What in th' HELL are you talking about?!?! Maybe I misunderstand you, but this isn't a straw man, this is utter gibberish. I've NEVER heard an "evolutionist" claim that."

If the ocean is sinking then how can you say that the amount of land mass we have now is the same as it has always been.

Has it always been sinking at the same rate?

What would a sinking ocean bottom do to the rate at which various land masses pulled apart or disappeared?

Evolutionists have two views of the earth: Pangea and now. They assume that from Pangea to now took a constant rate that worked out to millions of years.

What if Pangea wasn't the complete land mass?

206 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:18:38pm

By Anti-Constitutionalist I don't just mean ammendment 1. Ask Rushdoony what he thinks of article VI

207 thedopefishlives  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:19:13pm

re: #192 Slumbering Behemoth

Now I think you're being optimistic.

Yeah... When it comes to blockheads, sometimes one must delve into the realm of the infinite to discover numbers capable of expressing these orders of magnitude.

There, I exhausted my $5-word limit for the day.

208 cerclaman  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:19:16pm

re: #158 jcm

re: #158 jcm

That brings up the issue of getting kids educated in the sciences so they can compete in the world of today. Which is based on science as we know it today.

The thing is, and something I say over, and over again. There is a gap, a space between faith and science an huge space of UNKOWN. Both sides, faith more so that science try to project into that space.

If we could reliable count on kids being taught to discriminate, differentiate between faith and science. They it would be as much of an issue. The problem is those pushing hardest to get ID taught do not respect the boundaries.

The problem is not that they are trying to get ID taught; it's that they are trying to get it taught to MY kids. If some people want their kids to be ignorant, well, the world needs ditch diggers, too. I prefer to educate my kids.

209 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:19:48pm

re: #200 buzzsawmonkey

IT'S ALL SAN ANDREAS' FAULT! BIG SAN ANDREAS IS RIPPING US OFF!

OT, 'cause I've gotta either grin or foam at the mouth.

Have you ever heard of a book titled "The Last Days Of The Late Great State Of California", Curt Gentry; Putnam's, NY, 1968. ?

210 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:20:32pm

re: #205 KalvinB

Wait- let me grab my bong....I want to hear this.

211 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:20:56pm

re: #204 irish rose

OK, you.
This is a serious discussion ;).

Only in KalvinB's mind.

212 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:21:10pm

re: #210 Sharmuta

**bubbling noises**

213 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:21:11pm

re: #207 thedopefishlives

There, I exhausted my $5-word limit for the day.

I got a bunch for christmas last year that I haven't used yet, wanna borrow some?

214 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:21:15pm

re: #210 Sharmuta

Wait- let me grab my bong....I want to hear this.

BONNNNNGGGGGGG

215 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:21:22pm
216 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:21:37pm

"we aren't faced with discrete and separate rocks rattling around in a jar; we are faced with solid laters of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary strata, and they don't just up and reverse position "

Except for those areas where the layers are upside down.

You assume the layers were formed at a constant rate. But I can get layers of rocks by shaking a jar. I also have rocks popping up in my backyard that I know were buried a month ago more than 6" because I rototilled them out and put several layers of rockless dirt on top.

You assume those layers weren't formed by the natural process of earth sorting itself out like my backyard does. But it's certainly a possibility.

217 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:21:56pm

re: #194 KalvinB


K-Ar only alledgedly works for things that are 100,000 years old or older. Do we have written record of a lava flow that happened 100,000 years ago?

That is not the truth. The linked article says it is most applicable to those ranges. With a large enough sample it can work with much younger rocks and we have a lot of those samples.

"It cannot infiltrate a solid rock once the rock has solidified and it cannot remain in the rock when the rock is molten"

Really? Because that was one of the assumptions that is known to be wrong so the average starting K-Ar ratio is used to correct for errors in dating rocks with the K-Ar method.

You must work with magic rocks that have a perfect 1:0 ratio.


Known by whom to be wrong? Recently cooled rocks, from Mauna Kea or Mount St. Helens, for example, do in fact have very nearly perfect 1:0 ratios.

218 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:22:28pm
219 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:22:43pm

re: #216 KalvinB

Dude- LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE &/OR REPLY FEATURE!

Thanks.

220 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:23:27pm

re: #210 Sharmuta

Wait- let me grab my bong....I want to hear this.

Ok, I now have a hookah and after smoking it for a while now with both molasses tobacco, and non-tobacco shisha I can't grasp why someone would ruin the experience with that nasty illegal, foul smelling, disgusting, hemp like crap. The actual tobacco and herbal shisha are awesome, like smoking candy.

221 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:24:10pm

re: #205 KalvinB

You don't even get how silly you sound, it's sadly pathetic. Geologists study the earth, evolutionary biologists study how life evolves. They are not one and the same.

222 brownmear  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:24:39pm

re: #198 Thanos

That they are nowhere near squashed yet, that they are a small minority of anti-constitutionalist reconstructionists exerting undue influence on the religious right. That they could be focused on attacking the marxists in the teaching colleges, but instead they choose to attack science and reason.

That they are nowhere near squashed yet...

They have yet to win a victory anywhere, but if they do it would be devastating, therefore we should fight?

They are a small minority... exerting undue influence on the religious right? Where do you see the influence? I see years of trying and they get nowhere.

They could be focused on attacking the marxists in the teaching colleges...Or they could be focused on hunger in the third world or they could be focused on injustice by Mugabe's election, or they could be focused on reducing the West's reliance on oil or they could be...

So you are focused on attacking the marxists in the teaching colleges? How is that working out for you? Is that more important than saving starving children in the third world?

223 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:24:56pm
224 Scorch  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:24:59pm

I am not into this belief we have all evolved from some kind of slithering thing which eventually made it to land and grew legs. There had to be a beginning somewhere created by something and where in the heck did that original something come from....or did it just evolve from nothing?

225 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:25:17pm

re: #220 Mars Needs Neocons

The actual tobacco and herbal shisha are awesome, like smoking candy.

But do they enhance sexual pleasure, and stimulate the appetite?

226 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:25:46pm

Creationists did not evolve from monkeys, or should I say "beyond monkeys."

227 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:26:56pm

re: #216 KalvinB

I also saw a creationist kid create sodium chloride stalagmites/tites, from which he concluded it doesn't really take millions of years. But then again... aren't the real ones made of something different (and a whole lot less brittle)? So, do you really think that sand in a jar is equivalent to the deposition of soil/sand/debris through time?

228 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:27:09pm

re: #222 brownmear

You protest too much, I think.

229 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:27:56pm

re: #129 ArcherB

First of all, if you believe in God, you believe in ID. You may not see as these people do, but you believe that God created the heavens and the Earth. Seriously, how could you believe in God and NOT believe He created everything? (Xenu, excluded, of course)

Sal: The existence of a deity and whether or not a deity created the universe are separate questions. A nonexistent deity could not have created the universe, but nothing says that an existent deity had to.

That said, no matter how whacked out these guys are, Don McLeroy, Steve Abrams and whoever else, do we really want laws that forbid even talking about the merits of evolution? Isn't challenging the merits of theory one of the basic principles of the Scientific method?

Sal: Yes, but challenging aspects of the theory from within the realm of science, not from within the realm of belief. Assertions in the realm of science can be empirically tested, assertions in the realm of belief cannot be. This distinction forever fixes them in separate and never-the-twain-shall-meet mutually exclusive realms.

Personally, I believe in evolution, but I don't want those that would challenge its merits silenced by law. Let there be open discussion. Is there anything wrong with that?

Sal: As I said above; scientific debates and disputes are fine; they refine, elaborate, and improve the theory by honing its details. But challenging Evolutionary theory via recourse to untestable religious assertions would be like trying to scientifically check stars to see if God made them. Not only are both of these impossible to do, but the very attempt to try demonstrates a massive and fundamental confusion as to what science and faith are, as well as an abject lack of comprehension concerning the decisive differences between them.

230 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:27:59pm

re: #215 buzzsawmonkey

Short answer; no.

Gentry is/was a long-time native Californian, a professional journalist. The book was written as pseudo-science fiction, two years after the great earthquake which caused California west of the San Andreas to slide off into the Pacific.

It's a critical commentary upon what California had become by the mid/late Sixties. It's very interesting. Very informative. At times it's hilarious. (I should warn you that Gentry didn't have a high opinion of Ronald Reagan.)

231 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:28:07pm

re: #225 irish rose

But do they enhance sexual pleasure, and stimulate the appetite?

Umm, no, but they do make my head floaty and taste really good. The other stuff makes people too floaty and they eat all my snacks.

232 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:28:32pm

re: #166 buzzsawmonkey

Throbert, see my reply to you towards the end of the open thread.

I saw that, buzz. Thanks for the Cole Porter lyrics; I didn't know that song!

233 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:28:49pm
234 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:29:34pm

re: #233 buzzsawmonkey

You cannot stab someone in the back if they're looking right at you...

235 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:29:46pm

"Only in KalvinB's mind."

I enjoy these discussions. Having a geologist lie to me about pristine samples that I know for a fact don't exist because Scientific articles have said otherwise is interesting to me.

Talk Origins, Wikipedia and University pages have been enlightening.

It's amazing how many people get pissed off just because you challenge them to explain their views in detail and think about other possibilities.

Once the scientist has spoken the thinking has been done I suppose.

236 jc59  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:30:08pm

Here is a link to a piece by David Berlinski, published in the April 2008 issue of Commentary magazine. Has anyone read it? Only the teaser is available to non-subscribers.

[Link: www.commentarymagazine.com...]

And here are the letters to the editor...

[Link: www.commentarymagazine.com...]

Berlinski's most recent book is Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics . He is a senior fellow of .. (sinister, dark music plays in the background) the Discovery Institute."

237 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:31:04pm

"I would love to see your backyard experiments regarding the fall of the World Trade Center."

Alex Jones is probably parting his pool right now.

238 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:31:18pm
239 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:31:34pm

re: #170 Sharmuta


Oh, well, let's ban all discussion about it then. Hell, let's hope that Hezbollah doesn't try to use mathematics to try to destroy Israel or we'll have to ban all math classes too! And if Iran tries to use school in general to take over the Mid-East, we won't be able to send our kids to school anymore.

While my sarc is a bit radical, that is what you are claiming. Because a group of fundie new-Earthers want to force discussion on the merits of evolution, we must not discuss the merits of evolution.

How's this: If a teacher wants to have a class discussion over the merits of evolution, that's fine. We all agree that she should not break out a Bible. We all agree that the discussion should stay 100% on science and not bring up religion at all (unless, of course to answer a student's question... probably by referring him to his local religious institution... and nothing more). But to say that it simply can not be discussed is like no different than burning books. You are literally silencing a view because you don't agree with it. I don't agree with it either, but I'm not about to silence my opponents because I don't agree (fairness doctrine, anyone?)

240 Jimmah  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:32:36pm

Keep up the good work, Charles!

241 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:33:03pm

re: #238 buzzsawmonkey

The IDer's want everyone to be focusing on the islamofascists so that they can, while your back is proverbially turned, assult the constitution.

242 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:33:09pm

re: #237 KalvinB

"I would love to see your backyard experiments regarding the fall of the World Trade Center."

Alex Jones is probably parting his pool right now.

Parting, farting, or partying.

243 thedopefishlives  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:33:23pm

re: #239 ArcherB

The problem is not the idea of discussing the merits of evolution. The problem is, to use an analogy, akin to the camel's nose in the tent; sooner or later, you're gonna get the whole blasted camel. In this case the "camel" is the pile of flaming poo known as Intelligent Design, and its proponents the "Discovery" Institute. They've come up with what sounds like a good idea, in order to introduce bad science.

244 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:33:32pm

"As I said above; scientific debates and disputes are fine; they refine, elaborate, and improve the theory by honing its details. But challenging Evolutionary theory via recourse to untestable religious assertions would be like trying to scientifically check stars to see if God made them. Not only are both of these impossible to do, but the very attempt to try demonstrates a massive and fundamental confusion as to what science and faith are, as well as an abject lack of comprehension concerning the decisive differences between them."

Is it a religious assertion that contamination will skew dating methods that are sensitive to the billionth of a gram?

Assumptions are faith.

So until evolution rids itself of assumptions, it takes faith to accept it.

245 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:33:33pm

re: #222 brownmear

I can say yes I am focused on those things, and have been for years. The DI reconstructionists have been around for years under various other names and groups, they are persistent, and must be fought just as all other evils must be fought. If you don't like it, there are other threads.

246 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:33:39pm

assault...

247 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:34:40pm

re: #239 ArcherB

Any discussion should be between the Discovery Institute scientists and others who disagree with them, in peer-reviewed journals. Leave it out of high school science classes until the Discovery Institute scientists prove something.
Right now, they're engaged in a dishonest political end-around.

248 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:34:50pm

re: #235 KalvinB

"Only in KalvinB's mind."

I enjoy these discussions. Having a geologist lie to me about pristine samples that I know for a fact don't exist because Scientific articles have said otherwise is interesting to me.

Care to cite some of those articles for us, Kalvan?

249 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:35:27pm

re: #163 NonNativeTexan

Not to ignore you- it's easy on these threads to get wrapped up in another tangent.

I understand your feelings- I have a deep love and respect for President Washington myself, and it's hard to want to think less of someone we respect. That Washington was not a devoutly religious man doesn't change my opinion of him. I think like many people, he felt the power of God, but may have been turned off by religious institutions. This is my theory, and you're right, we won't ever know. So based on that, all we really have to go on is the historical record, and it speaks for itself. He wasn't deeply religious, although he was perhaps spiritually inclined.

250 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:35:39pm

"The IDer's want everyone to be focusing on the islamofascists so that they can, while your back is proverbially turned, assult the constitution."

Why do you think Charles has created a popular website focused on Islamofascists?

251 brownmear  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:35:41pm

re: #233 buzzsawmonkey

"Whatever it is you are doing is the wrong thing; you should be doing this instead" is the favored protest tactic of most of the lefties opposed to our current efforts against the Islamists.

Is that really the tack you want to take?

Sorry, I am having trouble wrapping my mind around that. The leftists and islamists agree with me that we have spent too much time on intelligent design? Creationism and its begotten son Id should be left in church, it should not be allowed in schools. Now lets move on to radical islam.

This is a tactic of the left? Those crafty bastards!

252 JHW  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:36:04pm

re: #202 Sharmuta

Bloody Hell! The earth's blowing up like a balloon. "They" don't want you to know the truth. Conspiracy! LOL, I've got to mix a drink after that one.

253 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:36:16pm
254 unixrab  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:36:23pm

**Yawn** God created the universe.. next.

255 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:36:47pm

re: #235 KalvinB

It's amazing how many people get pissed off just because you challenge them to explain their views in detail and think about other possibilities.

Once the scientist has spoken the thinking has been done I suppose.

And you, sir, construct your so-called facts out of thin air. THAT is what gets me pissed off. You are not accountable to anything other than your own preferences. What's more, you think you are better than the "scientists" whom you obviously despise.

256 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:37:20pm

re: #239 ArcherB

Oh for crying out loud! Not allowing theistic realism into science is now "banning debate". That is hardly the case, you are stretching, and it's just laughable in it's poor logic.

257 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:38:37pm

[Link: geology.about.com...]

The method relies on satisfying some important assumptions:

1. The potassium and argon must stay put in the mineral over geologic time. This is the hardest one to satisfy

[Link: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...]

Potassium-Argon dating has the advantage that the argon does not react chemically, so any found inside a rock is very likely the result of radioactive decay of potassium.

----

But not certainly. It's assumed.

258 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:38:40pm

re: #250 KalvinB

The same reason he has the anti-IDer threads... he's a freedom loving man and wants to highlight the activities of the enemies of freedom.

P.S. Use the quote function, or if you just want to type, include the handle of who you are responding to.

259 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:39:04pm

re: #210 Sharmuta

Wait- let me grab my bong....I want to hear this.

Done!

260 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:39:31pm

re: #144 KalvinB

"And they have actually found the rock formations in Africa and South America that were once connected, before continental drift allowed the Atlantic Ocean to develop between them. These rock formations are made of the same minerals, and even contain the same kinds of fossils. I suppose that all happened in 6000 years, too, ayy? And whatever do we do with the written records we have that date to more than 6000 years ago, not to mention all those nifty tools, homes, and cave art?"

Who said the earth was 6000 years old?

There's a tree they found that is around 8000 years old.

How do you know that nothing happenened that would have sped up the process that moved the continents to their current location?

The distance from New York to Spain is 3591 miles. You can't think of any event that would have sped that trip up in the time the earth has been around?

Can you prove the ocean bottom has always been at the bottom of the ocean as deep as it is now? Has the earth always been 1/3 land?

Read and learn:

[Link: www.platetectonics.com...]

[Link: www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...]

[Link: www.cotf.edu...]

[Link: www.seismo.unr.edu...]

[Link: www.moorlandschool.co.uk...]

[Link: csep10.phys.utk.edu...]

261 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:39:37pm
262 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:39:49pm

re: #250 KalvinB

"The IDer's want everyone to be focusing on the islamofascists so that they can, while your back is proverbially turned, assult the constitution."

Why do you think Charles has created a popular website focused on Islamofascists?

Sorry, I must be at the wrong site. The focus on Islamofascism consists of some articles on it, but there are plenty of other articles here on many other subjects. ID articles are just a small part of the entirety of exposing wrongheaded thinking in all its aspects. Did you miss the entire few months on Vlaams Belang (or whatever), I did, but even on rarely checking it was there. There were articles on the abuses of the system during Katrina, there were articles on faux documents, and faux photography. We discuss MSM lies and distortions frequently. Obama has outnumbered Islam by a long shot over the last few months. Lets not even list the number of music threads.

What site have you been reading?

263 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:40:49pm

re: #244 KalvinB

So until evolution rids itself of assumptions

Isn't it convenient how you, yourself, assume the existence of those assumptions.

Charles, and others, I'm outta here or I'm going to type something which will get me banned.

264 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:40:53pm

re: #220 Mars Needs Neocons

Ok, I now have a hookah and after smoking it for a while now with both molasses tobacco, and non-tobacco shisha I can't grasp why someone would ruin the experience with that nasty illegal, foul smelling, disgusting, hemp like crap. The actual tobacco and herbal shisha are awesome, like smoking candy.


Snob!

265 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:41:05pm

re: #251 brownmear

Post only a single link about radical Islam, and you'll have more credibility arguing that you're concerned about it.

266 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:41:21pm
268 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:41:43pm

"What's more, you think you are better than the "scientists" whom you obviously despise."

"scientists" in quotes I have no respect for. Scientists who don't try to build proofs on assumptions I respect.

It's not a proof if one of your premises is an assumption. "scientists" don't understand that (or want to pretend their assumptions are insignificant) and whine when you point out their assumption is flawed.

What scientific marvel has Evolution gotten us? Is my computer running on Evolution? Did Evolution get us to the moon?

269 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:41:56pm

re: #240 Jimmah

It's very easy for us to forget the risk that Charles takes when he tackles these subjects. We are commenting on a blog and there's no risk to us but Charles makes a living from LGF. Every time he takes on Vlaams Belang, The Disco Institute or criticizes the GOP he takes an enormous risk. Kudos to bravery.
/drink

270 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:42:03pm

re: #252 JHW

Wasn't that fun? lol

271 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:43:20pm

re: #231 Mars Needs Neocons

Umm, no, but they do make my head floaty and taste really good. The other stuff makes people too floaty and they eat all my snacks.


they make yer head taste really good? fascinating...

272 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:43:40pm

re: #243 thedopefishlives

The problem is not the idea of discussing the merits of evolution. The problem is, to use an analogy, akin to the camel's nose in the tent; sooner or later, you're gonna get the whole blasted camel. In this case the "camel" is the pile of flaming poo known as Intelligent Design, and its proponents the "Discovery" Institute. They've come up with what sounds like a good idea, in order to introduce bad science.

Here is the problem as I see it. The Disc Inst. wants to force a discussion on the merits of evolution. I'm fine with that as I believe that evolution can stand on its own. Hell, a scientific discussion on evolution will only help PROVE evolution. I see it going like this:

Evolution says this creatures evolve by passing on beneficial traits suited for a changing environment.

Those against evolution ask how something can increase in complexity over time. Those against evolution say that it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Those for evolution say that when energy is added to a closed system, order can increase over chaos, and therefor the second law is not violated.

... and so on.

Now I don't think the discussion should be mandatory, but I don't want to see it banned just because the Disc Inst wants it.

In my science class AND CHURCH we discussed the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Both places came to the same conclusion... evolution happens. However, if it were not for that discussion, I would have never heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics. So, talking about the arguments for and against evolution, my knowledge of science was actually EXPANDED.

Discussion is a good thing.

273 unixrab  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:43:42pm

re: #266 buzzsawmonkey

It may surprise you to realize this, but evolution does not discuss--let alone argue with--that statement.

.... and man in His image. /nexxt.

274 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:43:43pm

[Waving hand in air]

I'm just curious -- has anyone here on the anti-ID side actually read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box? 'Cause I've only read excerpts and reviews, and I have a question about the book.

275 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:44:10pm

re: #266 buzzsawmonkey

It may surprise you to realize this, but evolution does not discuss--let alone argue with--that statement.

Hear Hear!

276 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:44:16pm

re: #268 KalvinB

Well... technically yes, evolution did all of that. How many other animals do you see engineering such things?

The theory of how evolution happens on the other hand doesn't explain that. It is interesting that you bring that up... it is sort of like Ben Stein trying to discredit evolution by stating that it cannot explain gravity (in his promotion of his little propaganda flick).

277 KalvinB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:44:33pm

"Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years"

Good for it. Carbon dating is good for about that time frame as well but it falls apart after about 10,000 years. How do we know that K-Ar doesn't fall apart after a certain time frame due to contamination?

"Isn't it convenient how you, yourself, assume the existence of those assumptions."

[Link: geology.about.com...]

I guess the guy on About.com is a liar then.

278 Charles  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:45:05pm

My goodness.

279 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:45:31pm

re: #274 Throbert McGee

I haven't read it but Behe has been pretty thoroughly debunked. What do you need to know?

280 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:45:36pm

re: #264 joecitizen

Snob!

LOL,

Potheads steal my snacks.

281 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:46:13pm

re: #278 Charles

My goodness.


Zantec?

282 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:46:14pm

re: #272 ArcherB

NO ONE IS BANNING IT!

I asked you before to show me just ONE instance where a scientific debate on the merits of evolution was being banned. Go on- I'll wait.

283 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:46:50pm

re: #271 joecitizen

they make yer head taste really good? fascinating...

Ok, I must have hit your bong there for a minute.
/

How about they taste really good, and make my head all floaty.

(Kinda like my cigars)

284 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:46:50pm

Kalvin:

Spit it out. How old do you think the world is and what do you base your conclusions on?

285 thedopefishlives  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:47:13pm

re: #278 Charles

My goodness.

Heads are asploding all over this thread, Charles. Methinks Stinky will need a resupply of bleach.

286 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:47:20pm

re: #153 ArcherB

The strengths and weakness of scentific theories are assessible from within the realm of science, and not from within the realm of religion.

And as far as what the Disco Institute guys' ulterior motive agenda is, we don't have to guess; to their great embarrassment, the leaked Wedge Document outlines the whole sordid plot, step by cynical step.

287 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:47:57pm

re: #253 buzzsawmonkey

You don't talk Spanish in German class.

You don't recite lyric poetry in history class.

You don't talk religion in science class.

Pretty simple, really.

This is not history, Spanish or German....

And yes, we debated the causes of the Civil War in History. While some said it was slavery, others mentioned several other reasons, like a state's right to foreign trade.

But let me ask you this, Do you allow debate on man-made global warming in Science class? Or do you only show Al Gore's film and teach it as fact, allowing no other viewpoints? There are some people that think that man-made GW is fact and shouldn't be debated. Do you agree?

288 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:48:00pm
289 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:48:06pm
Did Evolution get us to the moon?

Well... we evolved and evolved and evolved, and the next thing you know, SMACK, we're on the friggin' moon!

So the answer to your question is obviously a resounding "Yes."

290 mjk  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:48:11pm

Good God, another one of these? Don't we have more important things to discuss? Like Obama? Or McCain? Or Iran? Or, oh, crap, I don't know, Britney Spears?

I said it before and I'll say it again, these threads accomplish nothing. People who believe in ID won't change their minds. Nor will evolutionists. All this causes is immature name calling and accusations of "stupid redneck." Have at it though. I'm going for a run.

291 Charles  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:48:38pm

I keep thinking KalvinB is going to whip out the punch line -- see, I was putting you all on! -- because nobody can really believe this stuff, can they?

Come on, KalvinB, admit it! You're kidding, right?

292 JHW  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:49:15pm

re: #270 Sharmuta

Unbelievable! Fun in the way that Sasquatch and such other nonsense is taken seriously for more than a millisecond. I still cannot fathom why any of these ideas are necessary to religious belief, of the very many devout people I know, an insignificantly tiny majority are concerned about evolution and are emotionally wrapped up in trying to discredit it. I must have missed something over the years, you can't be religious without denying evolution it seems.

293 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:49:15pm

re: #290 mjk

Don't we have more important things to discuss?


No.
/life is good

294 Jimmah  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:49:31pm

re: #269 Killgore Trout

It's very easy for us to forget the risk that Charles takes when he tackles these subjects. We are commenting on a blog and there's no risk to us but Charles makes a living from LGF. Every time he takes on Vlaams Belang, The Disco Institute or criticizes the GOP he takes an enormous risk. Kudos to bravery.
/drink

Yep to that. And the drink as well:)

295 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:49:45pm

re: #254 unixrab

**Yawn** God created the universe.. next.

only if by 'next' you mean you're going to actually put some effort into oh,I dunno, mebbe reading a coupla books other than the one commonly found in the nightstand drawer of your lesser motels...

296 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:49:50pm

re: #294 Jimmah

Cheers.

297 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:50:27pm

re: #287 ArcherB

What is the name of the pro-evolution agitprop film that you are paralleling to Gore's AGW film? There isn't one. Your metaphor doesn't hold any water.

298 Charles  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:51:16pm

Ulp.

I don't think he was kidding.

299 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:51:18pm

re: #292 JHW

Unbelievable! Fun in the way that Sasquatch and such other nonsense is taken seriously for more than a millisecond. I still cannot fathom why any of these ideas are necessary to religious belief, of the very many devout people I know, an insignificantly tiny majority are concerned about evolution and are emotionally wrapped up in trying to discredit it. I must have missed something over the years, you can't be religious without denying evolution it seems.

Let's not disparage Sasquatch. We Cryptozoologists take that kind of stuff seriously.

(But, we're not going to force it into science class.)

300 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:51:21pm

Oh for [deleted] sake.

NO ONE is banning scientific debate based on scientific reasoning.

NO ONE is banning debate on evolution with theistic reasoning on non-public property.

The problem is allowing theistic reasoning in public school science classrooms.

And- BTW- no one is arguing for or against against global warming by claiming God.

301 JHW  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:51:51pm

re: #292 JHW

Err, I meant minority. Dang-nabbit.

302 brownmear  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:52:08pm

Ok, I agree. DI, or ID if you prefer, is a threat to my life and my children's life. Please snuff it out for the children. It has never made it into a single school but if it does! Think of the children!

303 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:52:43pm

I knew they were going to bring up global warming, they always do when they are on the run.

MMGW is a fact. We had that discussion last night. Man contributes some to the warming of the planet, do you have proof otherwise?

The debate isn't over man made GW, it's whether it matters enough -- in my estimation it sure doesn't.

304 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:53:22pm

re: #302 brownmear

It's being taught by approximately 7% of high school teachers polled in a recent survey I linked to last night.

305 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:53:27pm

Waaaa I'm a victim... help help I'm being oppressed!

306 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:53:55pm

re: #291 Charles

I keep thinking KalvinB is going to whip out the punch line -- see, I was putting you all on! -- because nobody can really believe this stuff, can they?

Come on, KalvinB, admit it! You're kidding, right?

I think not, Charles.

I had a roommate for a while in college. I was out of the Navy and Nam. This kid was a 20-year-old sophomore who fancied himself a campus radical (this was 1966/67). He was so full of himself he was simply incredible. Anything contrary to what he wanted to believe simply went straight over his head. I honestly believe that he was able to ignore reality.

KalvinB seems to have the same knack.

307 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:53:56pm

re: #302 brownmear

Uh- it has made it into classrooms, and it took a lawsuit to get it back out.

Kitzmiller v Dover

308 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:54:17pm

re: #279 Killgore Trout

I haven't read it but Behe has been pretty thoroughly debunked. What do you need to know?

I'm just curious to know whether Behe ever acknowledges the irony of calling his book Darwin's Black Box but then invoking the Black-Blickity-Blackest of Black Boxes (a.k.a. "The Intelligent Designer") to explain what Behe calls "irreducible complexities."

309 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:54:31pm

re: #303 Thanos

I knew they were going to bring up global warming, they always do when they are on the run.

I'm waiting for the eugenics angle.

310 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:56:39pm

Kalvin

Still waiting to hear how old you think the world is, and what you base that on.

311 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:57:00pm

How about including the concept of a creator be during science class?

If not, then this really isn't about “intelligent design” pseudo-science.
It's about excluding any creator hypothesis.

You can discuss the creation, but not touch upon the creator ?

312 stantheman  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:57:08pm

I note the steady dropoff in visitors to Little Green Footballs since this anti-ID crusade began. I guess it's more important than the upcoming election. Sad how we sometimes are our worst enemies....

313 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:57:34pm

re: #282 Sharmuta

NO ONE IS BANNING IT!

I asked you before to show me just ONE instance where a scientific debate on the merits of evolution was being banned. Go on- I'll wait.

OK, then maybe I'm misunderstanding it then. I see comments like #253 that imply that discussion the merits of a theory, specifically evolution is somehow bringing religion into the classroom. Now, I don't know how many times I have to say it, but here, I'll bold it this time:
RELIGION HAS NO PLACE BEING TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

So, we agree right? Do you need me to say it again. Anyone want to tell me how I can make it bigger?

OK, with that said, do you think it is OK for a teacher to institute a class discussion on the merits of the theory of evolution? No God, no religion, no Bible. Just an otherwise open discussion on the scientific basis for the theory of evolution. Yes or No.

314 theatheistjew  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:57:40pm

Amazingly, I just found out there are at least 7 different types of creationists in the world. I put up a survey: What type of creationist are you?

315 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:57:46pm

re: #310 Thanos

I was in line first... I'm waiting for him to explain the relevance of his sand in a jar model for soil deposition.

/sarc

316 brownmear  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:57:58pm

re: #307 Sharmuta

Uh- it has made it into classrooms, and it took a lawsuit to get it back out.

Kitzmiller v Dover

And a law suit to get it back out!

Meanwhile, Theo Van Gogh was unavailable for comment.

317 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:58:10pm

re: #310 Thanos

Kalvin

Still waiting to hear how old you think the world is, and what you base that on.

Kalvin,

Earth to Kalvin,

Time to grow up. How old do YOU think the Earth is, and upon what do you base that?

318 Reno911  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:58:32pm

But what about the evolution of electric guitars? Hawaiian steel dating proves the existence of Rickenbacher. Don't tell me Leo Fender did not have an Intelligent Design.

Debate over. I win.

319 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:58:53pm

re: #302 brownmear

Ok, I agree. DI, or ID if you prefer, is a threat to my life and my children's life. Please snuff it out for the children. It has never made it into a single school but if it does! Think of the children!

Please check the links in last night's thread, there's a survey that demonstrates it's being taught in public school science classes. Not the majority but enough that it might surprise you. (But probably not, you are probably with the Discovery Institute)

Does anyone know how much money Ben Stein made to sell his intellectual soul to Ahmanson?

320 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:59:07pm

re: #309 Sharmuta

I'm waiting for the eugenics angle.

Ok, eugenics was promoted heavily in the last days of the 1800's by the American left and the socialist movement. It was loosely based on the writings of Darwins cousin (or was it nephew?) Galton. The movement was based on solid theories but is so utterly morally repugnant that it has been rejected by most sane people. (Interestingly it really caught on in Germany in the 1800's and grew and spread rather than being pushed to the lunatic fringe like it was in most of the world.)

/Oh, you didn't mean that angle.

321 profitsbeard  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:59:09pm

How does the dentist, Dr. McElroy, on the school's selection committee -who favors ID- explain the canine teeth in humans?

God likes a few pointy teeth to break up the chiclet-y monotony?

Or why do we have monkey-like ears, and not those like dogs?

Design, of a kind.

Intelligent?

Not of any sort we know.

322 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:59:15pm

re: #312 stantheman

Aren't you supposed to be out raising money for the RNC?

323 jc59  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:59:33pm

re: #274 Throbert McGee

[Waving hand in air]

I'm just curious -- has anyone here on the anti-ID side actually read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box? 'Cause I've only read excerpts and reviews, and I have a question about the book.

It came up on a list of the 10 books that most screwed up the world-- as number one.

[Link: listverse.com...]

324 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:59:51pm

re: #257 KalvinB

[Link: geology.about.com...]

The method relies on satisfying some important assumptions:

1. The potassium and argon must stay put in the mineral over geologic time. This is the hardest one to satisfy

[Link: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...]

Potassium-Argon dating has the advantage that the argon does not react chemically, so any found inside a rock is very likely the result of radioactive decay of potassium.

----

But not certainly. It's assumed.

You left out some critical parts of the first quote:

"Given careful work in the field and in the lab, these assumptions can be met.

The K-Ar Method in Practice
The rock sample to be dated must be chosen very carefully. Any alteration or fracturing means that the potassium or the argon or both have been disturbed. The site must be geologically meaningful, clearly related to fossil-bearing rocks or other features that need a good date to join the big story. Lava flows above and below rock beds holding ancient human fossils are a good—and true—example."

Can you suggest a means by which argon would migrate into solid rock and stay there, especially in a way that would yield identical errors over a large number of samples? In fact, people have worked on this for 50 years and have so far come up empty-handed. If this did happen, it would still be apparent from the ratios of the intermediate isotopes. As for migrating out of the rock, if argon did this it would shorten the predicted age, not lengthen it. If potassium did this, we would have a chemically bound solid migrating out and an inert gas staying put. I don't think we are going too far to assume that this is extremely unlikely, especially since it would have to happen uniformly enough to distort every such test by the same amount.

325 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 7:59:55pm

re: #312 stantheman

I note the steady dropoff in visitors to Little Green Footballs since this anti-ID crusade began. I guess it's more important than the upcoming election. Sad how we sometimes are our worst enemies....


The only "anti-ID crusade" on LGF is the one that people fabricate in their own minds.

326 Charles  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:00:05pm

re: #312 stantheman

I note the steady dropoff in visitors to Little Green Footballs since this anti-ID crusade began. I guess it's more important than the upcoming election. Sad how we sometimes are our worst enemies....

Uh no ... if you're talking about the lower visit count today, you're actually noting a small bug in our config file that stopped the pageviews from being counted correctly for most of this afternoon. Traffic was slightly above normal today, thanks.

327 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:00:31pm

re: #313 ArcherB

I've asked you a couple times now to show me where the debate based on scientific reasoning is being banned. If you think that is not the case, then quit obfuscating the issue.

328 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:02:02pm

re: #175 KalvinB

"Maybe it's time the creationists actually began, for the first time, honestly evaluating the Everest of evidence for evolutionary theory, and the lack of even a molehill of evidence against it."

What mountain of evidence do you have that everything started with a single spark of life?

It's not the ability to change that's in question. It's the length of time and the relationships between species. And where it all began.

Sal: Actually, biogenesis is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. What happens to the life once it's here is what evolutionary theory is about. This is the eleventy-twelfth time that people have tried to confuse this issue, and I simply will not allow it. As to the relationships between species, this is being filled in day by day by several converging and mutually verifying means; cell DNA, mitochondrial DNA, and artifactual retroviral DNA sequences, for instance. The degree of degradation of the artifictual retroviral DNA sequences can tell us how long ago an organism's DNA was infected by it, and which artifactual retroviral DNA sequences two species do and do not share can tell us when they diverged from a common ancestor. it's not just being done between humans and great apes, but between wolves, dogs, foxes and jackals, and between the different species of cats.

Once you take simplistic "things change" out of the argument for "Evolution" you suddenly have a distinct lack of facts that not even IDers disagree with and whole pile of assumptions about relationships between species and timeframes. Which is really what Evolution is all about. And where there are arguments and debates.

Sal: Actually, you have an amazingly large and comprehensive mountain of facts; the entire sequenced DNA of several species, including humans and chimps, the repeatable-under-controlled-laboratory-conditions macroevolution of an E. Coli strain into an organism that breaks down citric acid, something no E. Coli has ever been known to do, a fossil record the 'missing link' transitional forms of which are progressively filled in as time goes on (and a big one recently, that appeared in LGF, about a transitional form between fish and reptile and the development of clawed arms from fins), and so much more. Milliions upon millions of experiments and observations, none of which have falsified evolutionary theory.

To say the debate is closed because we know that things change is a pretty ignorant view of what Evolution entails.

To say that ID, a religious assertion, belongs in public high school science classrooms simply because fundamentalist Protestants at the Disco Institute want it that way is to confuse science, religion, and moneyed pressure politics.

329 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:02:02pm

re: #308 Throbert McGee

I'm just curious to know whether Behe ever acknowledges the irony....


I don't think so, he's too busy counting his money from exploiting rubes. He might be a genuine believer but I suspect he's found an uncritical and gullible audience (like Mikey Moore) and is simply cashing in.

330 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:02:14pm

re: #277 KalvinB

Good for it. Carbon dating is good for about that time frame as well but it falls apart after about 10,000 years. How do we know that K-Ar doesn't fall apart after a certain time frame due to contamination?

"Isn't it convenient how you, yourself, assume the existence of those assumptions."

[Link: geology.about.com...]

I guess the guy on About.com is a liar then.

What method do you use to date the rocks in your head?

Apologies now, in advance, to all, as I usually do not make these sorts of comments. I am trying to figure out what rock-dating has to do with this thread.

331 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:02:15pm

re: #300 Sharmuta

Oh for [deleted] sake.

NO ONE is banning scientific debate based on scientific reasoning.

NO ONE is banning debate on evolution with theistic reasoning on non-public property.

The problem is allowing theistic reasoning in public school science classrooms.

And- BTW- no one is arguing for or against against global warming by claiming God.

No, but what is the difference between discussion the merits of man-made Global Warming and evolution? There are those that say both are fact and should not be debated. Why is it OK to discuss one and not the other? Or is it?

Again, NO GOD in Science class, just a scientific discussion. (Some people are under the impression that you can't say anything against evolution without bringing up God... Uh, You did when you said that disussion Evolution was, "The problem is allowing theistic reasoning in public school science classrooms.")

332 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:02:26pm

re: #323 jc59

It came up on a list of the 10 books that most screwed up the world-- as number one.

[Link: listverse.com...]

Hell yeah. I just finished reading the book by that name, and though it had some good points and some crossover with that list, I prefer your list, some of those books were just flat out deadly.

333 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:04:10pm

re: #239 ArcherB


While my sarc is a bit radical, that is what you are claiming. Because a group of fundie new-Earthers want to force discussion on the merits of evolution, we must not discuss the merits of evolution.

That's just it. They may say that's what they want, but that is not their true agenda. Read the Wedge Document and the Wedge Strategy links that other Lizards (myself included in #173) have provided for you, and you will see that they are being disingenuous with their claims of "scientific discussion".

If, however, you choose to continue parroting their dishonest talking points I will have to conclude that you are either an unwitting dupe or a DI shill.

334 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:04:11pm

re: #326 Charles

I can't wait until LGF is just zombie and I discussing how fantastic pat Condell is.

335 brownmear  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:04:29pm

re: #319 Thanos

Please check the links in last night's thread, there's a survey that demonstrates it's being taught in public school science classes. Not the majority but enough that it might surprise you. (But probably not, you are probably with the Discovery Institute)

Does anyone know how much money Ben Stein made to sell his intellectual soul to Ahmanson?

I am now with the Discovery Institute? It must pay about as much as the Zionist Brigade!

As I stated earlier, I don't believe religion should be taught in public schools, that is all forms of creationism, ID, Di, or any other forms it takes, But go ahead and feel free to label me if it strengthens your own beliefs!

336 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:04:38pm

re: #331 ArcherB

Again, NO GOD in Science class, just a scientific discussion. (Some people are under the impression that you can't say anything against evolution without bringing up God... Uh, You did when you said that disussion Evolution was, "The problem is allowing theistic reasoning in public school science classrooms.")

No- you did when you seemed to think that not allowing ID into the classrooms was somehow a ban on debating evolution based on scientific reasoning. I'm not the one obfuscating here- it's you.

337 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:04:57pm

re: #334 Killgore Trout

I'm not leaving.

338 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:05:12pm

re: #176 irish rose

There is a strong body of evidence to support evolution in the plant and animal world.

But human evolution has not yet been proven, and therefore remains theory.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

Wrong; it has indeed been proven; and here we go again, with the umpteenth posting of the proof:

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Excerpt:

“If Charles Darwin reappeared today, he might be surprised to learn that humans are descended from viruses as well as from apes,” Weiss wrote.

Darwin’s surprise almost certainly would be mixed with delight: when he suggested, in “The Descent of Man” (1871), that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, it was a revolutionary idea, and it remains one today. Yet nothing provides more convincing evidence for the “theory” of evolution than the viruses contained within our DNA. Until recently, the earliest available information about the history and the course of human diseases, like smallpox and typhus, came from mummies no more than four thousand years old. Evolution cannot be measured in a time span that short. Endogenous retroviruses provide a trail of molecular bread crumbs leading millions of years into the past.

Darwin’s theory makes sense, though, only if humans share most of those viral fragments with relatives like chimpanzees and monkeys. And we do, in thousands of places throughout our genome. If that were a coincidence, humans and chimpanzees would have had to endure an incalculable number of identical viral infections in the course of millions of years, and then, somehow, those infections would have had to end up in exactly the same place within each genome. The rungs of the ladder of human DNA consist of three billion pairs of nucleotides spread across forty-six chromosomes. The sequences of those nucleotides determine how each person differs from another, and from all other living things. The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by inheriting it from a common ancestor.

Molecular biology has made precise knowledge about the nature of that inheritance possible. With extensive databases of genetic sequences, reconstructing ancestral genomes has become common, and retroviruses have been found in the genome of every vertebrate species that has been studied. Anthropologists and biologists have used them to investigate not only the lineage of primates but the relationships among animals—dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes, for example—and also to test whether similar organisms may in fact be unrelated.

But read the whole thing...carefully...and bookmark it for further perusal.

339 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:05:16pm

re: #318 Reno911

But what about the evolution of electric guitars? Hawaiian steel dating proves the existence of Rickenbacher. Don't tell me Leo Fender did not have an Intelligent Design.

Debate over. I win.

Wrong. Eugenimaniacs (my academic specialty) clearly proves that acoustics are clearly superior to the assumptions upon which the theoretical advantages for electrics rest, which said assumptions are in fact engulfed in controversy. Nothing can beat a D-28 or a J-200.

Debate over. I WIN!

340 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:05:44pm

re: #327 Sharmuta

I've asked you a couple times now to show me where the debate based on scientific reasoning is being banned. If you think that is not the case, then quit obfuscating the issue.

Uh... YOU DID. You, and you are not the only one, equate debating the merits of evolution to teaching religion in Science class. Let me quote you. Here is what you said when I compared debating GW to evolution. You said:

The problem is allowing theistic reasoning in public school science classrooms. And- BTW- no one is arguing for or against against global warming by claiming God.

Notice, that I did not say, "Debate the merits of evolution using religion as a guide." I simply said "debate the merits of the theory of evolution..."

So, there you have it. YOU SAID IT.

341 thedopefishlives  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:05:44pm

re: #337 Sharmuta

I'm not leaving.

Me neither. I'll sit here and make angry faces at Shar all day.

(boy, that's a throwback. I haven't sat in the Lizard Lounge in ages.)

342 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:06:33pm

This was interesting, from the 'ten books' link:

"Despite much refutation from the Scientific community, many fundamentalists still use this as a “source” for proof that evolution is not true. The book itself was not peer reviewed as Behe claimed under oath, and the Science community has overwhelming rejected it."
343 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:06:44pm

re: #334 Killgore Trout

I can't wait until LGF is just zombie and I discussing how fantastic pat Condell is.

What, am I going somewhere? You're stuck with me until my cable money is gone. And then I can log in on my pda/phone. BWAHHAAHAA

344 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:08:14pm

re: #343 Mars Needs Neocons

I ended a sentence in a preposition.
/I stink

345 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:08:37pm

re: #331 ArcherB

...NO GOD in Science class


So, it's not really about ID. It's about God.

Even if kids ask about what might have created our Universe,
you folks don't want any talk, any hypothesis, of a creator.

346 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:08:44pm

re: #335 brownmear

I am now with the Discovery Institute? It must pay about as much as the Zionist Brigade!

As I stated earlier, I don't believe religion should be taught in public schools, that is all forms of creationism, ID, Di, or any other forms it takes, But go ahead and feel free to label me if it strengthens your own beliefs!

Ok maybe you aren't with DI, but you will note that they tend to lie. Back here on June 4 you cared enough about what goes on in schools to read the article and comment, so what changed in the intervening weeks?

347 jc59  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:09:04pm

re: #332 Mars Needs Neocons

Actually, I'm in the process of reading it. How can I resist reading the number one book of all time?

348 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:09:20pm

re: #250 KalvinB

Why do you think Charles has created a popular website focused on Islamofascists?

He created a popular website focused on cycling (or was it programming?). It has since evolved into an anti-idiotarian website that focuses on various threats to Western civilization. And sometimes music. And sometimes cool pictures he takes. And sometimes technology. And sometimes what ever the hell he wants.

349 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:09:32pm

re: #344 Killgore Trout

I ended a sentence in a preposition.
/I stink

LOL

I think your safe. Haven't seen Goddess all night.

/Misspelled you're intentionally. Teacher bait.

350 stantheman  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:10:15pm

#326 Interesting Charles. What is 'normal' traffic approximately for a day at LGF these days? I realize that there's a difference between weekends and weekdays - please advise.

My memory may be faulty but I seem to recall that before the last election visits to LGF were ~120,000 per day. These days it's significantly lower (though I can't vouch for bugs in the counter).

351 Jimmah  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:10:18pm

re: #341 thedopefishlives

Nor me, even though I'm too busy to post much at the moment.

Laters, folks...:)

352 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:10:45pm

re: #337 Sharmuta

I'm not leaving.

I'm waiting with bated breath to hear whether you're pro or con regarding Condell. If you're against him, I'll stay around to take your side and hammer Killgore.

/I can be bought

353 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:10:47pm

re: #254 unixrab


**Yawn** God created the universe.. next.

Yawn indeed. If you find this thread boring, there is an active one upstairs. Go for it.

354 swamprat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:10:47pm

re: #321 profitsbeard

How does the dentist, Dr. McElroy, on the school's selection committee -who favors ID- explain the canine teeth in humans?

Or why do we have monkey-like ears, and not those like dogs?


Phooey! That's nothing! Canine teeth! The better to eat meat! Monkey ears! More wide-spread, but less directional hearing!
The coccyx! Now that's a vestige!

Leave it to the non- atheist, Christian believer to do the heavy lifting. And me with a strained credulity from watching shamuta's link.

355 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:10:48pm

re: #345 BuddyG

So, it's not really about ID. It's about God.

Even if kids ask about what might have created our Universe,
you folks don't want any talk, any hypothesis, of a creator.

Bingo. I don't. Don't know about these other folks. A creator is not about science. Why is that so hard to understand?

Walter in Golden, Co.

356 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:10:53pm

re: #347 jc59

Actually, I'm in the process of reading it. How can I resist reading the number one book of all time?

Which one?

357 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:11:01pm

re: #164 ArcherB

Agreed! And when they "sneak" religion in, throw it and them out. But don't completely ban discussion over fear that someone might say the word "God" in science class.

Just say the word 'science' in God class and see how far you get in some churches...;~)

The only mention of God in science class should be silently, when students are paying they'll pass the latest pop quiz.

358 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:11:16pm

re: #314 theatheistjew

Amazingly, I just found out there are at least 7 different types of creationists in the world. I put up a survey: What type of creationist are you?

Hmmm... atheistjew, I looked at your survey, and I'm pretty sure (but I could be wrong) that the official position of the Pope as head of the Catholic Church is closer to what you call "Evolutionary Creationism" -- in that the Church insists that the Fall of Adam was a unique and discrete historical event, and not simply a metaphor about the gradual development of moral consciousness over many generations of early humans.

359 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:12:01pm

re: #344 Killgore Trout

I ended a sentence in a preposition.
/I stink

I'll bet you always go for the top bunk.
(-:

360 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:12:22pm

re: #340 ArcherB

No- now you're just misrepresenting. YOU on the other hand have been saying for days now that blocking ID from the classroom is somehow banning debate on evolution. Here's your search for the last 7 days. You have whined and complained about this issue and now have developed a more nuanced approach, which, imo, borders on manipulation, repeatedly using terminology such as "ban" discussion and now you're trying to erect a strawman on my position.

361 Charles  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:12:48pm

re: #350 stantheman

#326 Interesting Charles. What is 'normal' traffic approximately for a day at LGF these days? I realize that there's a difference between weekends and weekdays - please advise.

My memory may be faulty but I seem to recall that before the last election visits to LGF were ~120,000 per day. These days it's significantly lower (though I can't vouch for bugs in the counter).

I think you have me confused with someone who gives a crap.

362 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:13:22pm

re: #345 BuddyG

So, it's not really about ID. It's about God.

Even if kids ask about what might have created our Universe,
you folks don't want any talk, any hypothesis, of a creator.

Whose God would you be comfortable with?

ID is about God in the classroom.

363 theatheistjew  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:13:44pm

The problem of bringing religion into the public sector is very evident in something that just happened in Ontario.
The issue was keeping the Lords Prayer prior to meetings of Ontario Legislature.
How can you have a prayer for one religion and not for others. On the other had, as a secularist, why have prayer at all in government or school?
The Christian Right decided to become vocal and had to keep the prayer. Now other prayers are rotated each day alongside the Christian prayer.
This includes Muslim prayer.

If anything opens the door to bring Sharia Law to the West, it is the stance that the USA and Canada need to be Christian countries, but vocal Christians.

Allowing religion in the classroom has the same affect. In Texas, it may not seem so horrible because Muslims aren't likely to throw their weight around there when it comes to equality. But if it happened in Dearborn, science class could be talking about Muslim creation all day long.

364 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:14:21pm

re: #353 Slumbering Behemoth

Yawn indeed. If you find this thread boring, there is an active one upstairs. Go for it.

unixrab has been yawning on several threads.

365 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:14:32pm

re: #355 Walter L. Newton

Bingo. I don't. Don't know about these other folks. A creator is not about science. Why is that so hard to understand?

Walter in Golden, Co.

Then approach it from a scientifc point of view.
We have a Universe. What might have created it?
And consider the possibilities.

Kids, in science class, naturally wonder and ask about such things.

If you're against even that, then you're just biased.

366 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:14:54pm

re: #350 stantheman

#326 Interesting Charles. What is 'normal' traffic approximately for a day at LGF these days? I realize that there's a difference between weekends and weekdays - please advise.

My memory may be faulty but I seem to recall that before the last election visits to LGF were ~120,000 per day. These days it's significantly lower (though I can't vouch for bugs in the counter).

During that period if you are talking about the runup to '06 there was also a major war going on in Israel and Lebanon, and the Hamas Grievance theater fauxtography was the buzz. Or have you forgotten?

367 thedopefishlives  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:15:08pm

re: #361 Charles

You, sir, win this thread. Discussion ended.

/NEXT!

368 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:15:14pm

re: #363 theatheistjew

The problem of bringing religion into the public sector is very evident in something that just happened in Ontario.
The issue was keeping the Lords Prayer prior to meetings of Ontario Legislature.
How can you have a prayer for one religion and not for others. On the other had, as a secularist, why have prayer at all in government or school?
The Christian Right decided to become vocal and had to keep the prayer. Now other prayers are rotated each day alongside the Christian prayer.
This includes Muslim prayer.

If anything opens the door to bring Sharia Law to the West, it is the stance that the USA and Canada need to be Christian countries, but vocal Christians.

Allowing religion in the classroom has the same affect. In Texas, it may not seem so horrible because Muslims aren't likely to throw their weight around there when it comes to equality. But if it happened in Dearborn, science class could be talking about Muslim creation all day long.

I seem to remember a year or so ago about a school that did a "muslim week". They're already manipulating things. We don't really need to give them more openings.

369 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:15:24pm

re: #365 BuddyG

Why be prejudiced towards a universe that was created? Why couldn't it have always just been?

370 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:15:40pm

re: #336 Sharmuta

No- you did when you seemed to think that not allowing ID into the classrooms was somehow a ban on debating evolution based on scientific reasoning. I'm not the one obfuscating here- it's you.

HERE:

Whatever one may think about the possible merits of introducing the specious weaknesses of evolutionary biology into science classes, even if only to tear them down by demonstrating that they do not stand up to experimental evidence, the big problem is that the people taking decisions on these matters seem completely ignorant about science.

To me this sounds like, Because idiots suggest A:, we must not do A, even if doing so will prove they are idiots.

371 swamprat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:15:46pm

re: #354 swamprat

Spelling correction; Sharmuta

372 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:16:09pm

re: #340 ArcherB

And upon what BODY OF FACTS do you propose to debate the overall validity of the scientifically-derived (and constantly evolving) facts upon which current evolutionary concepts are based?

373 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:16:47pm

Obama '08!

374 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:17:00pm

re: #368 Mars Needs Neocons

That's still going on, the lesson plans are still out there, there's a charitable foundation behind it that has an unpopular political agenda, so in other words they are just like DI.

375 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:17:01pm

re: #362 reine.de.tout

Whose God would you be comfortable with?

ID is about God in the classroom.


No specific relgion's dogma should ever be pushed in a public school classroom.
However, the concept of a creator is generic enough to be included. Especially in the context of scientific discussions such as what existed before the Big Bang.

376 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:17:35pm

re: #371 swamprat

I got that link from another hater of these threads- it's in the spinoffs somewhere.

377 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:17:54pm

re: #277 KalvinB

"Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years"

Good for it. Carbon dating is good for about that time frame as well but it falls apart after about 10,000 years. How do we know that K-Ar doesn't fall apart after a certain time frame due to contamination?

In fact, radio-carbon dating is not limited by contamination but by the short half-life of carbon 14, which is around 5730 years. The limiting age for a 1mg sample is about ten half lives, ca 60,000 years because beyond that there is not enough C14 left to accurately measure.

K40 has a half life of 1.25 billion years. I would not doubt that K-Ar testing would encounter the same problems as radio-carbon over the same number of half-lives, but that would be 12.5 billion years.

These half-lives, by the way, are a product of fundamental nuclear processes and are determined by nuclear physicists in research that has nothing to do with geology.

378 theatheistjew  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:17:56pm

re: #358 Throbert McGee

Hmmm... atheistjew, I looked at your survey, and I'm pretty sure (but I could be wrong) that the official position of the Pope as head of the Catholic Church is closer to what you call "Evolutionary Creationism" -- in that the Church insists that the Fall of Adam was a unique and discrete historical event, and not simply a metaphor about the gradual development of moral consciousness over many generations of early humans.


I copied the definition and the explanations. I said that there was a lot of overlap between the first two types of creationists. I went on to say that I couldn't tell for sure which of those two Dr. Ken Miller, a Catholic would say he is.

379 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:18:12pm

re: #369 Dan G.

Why be prejudiced towards a universe that was created? Why couldn't it have always just been?

Then include that hypothesis as well.

380 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:18:50pm

re: #365 BuddyG

Then approach it from a scientifc point of view.
We have a Universe. What might have created it?
And consider the possibilities.

Kids, in science class, naturally wonder and ask about such things.

If you're against even that, then you're just biased.

Straw man there. A creator is not science. It cannot be approached from a scientific point of view.

That's just the point that is being made here. ID wants to say it's looking at creation from a scientific point of view. It's not. Not inthe way science deals with proofs and theories.

Walter in Golden, Co.

381 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:18:54pm

re: #374 Thanos

That's still going on, the lesson plans are still out there, there's a charitable foundation behind it that has an unpopular political agenda, so in other words they are just like DI.

Color me surprised.

/do i have to.

382 DesertSage  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:19:15pm

1. Theistic Evolution. This is the Catholic Pope's officially stated position, and it's embraced by many real scientists of faith. Theistic evolution accepts both the geologic and biologic records, including modern evolutionary synthesis, and posits that these are simply the tools God chose to create the natural world. Theistic evolution allows and embraces scientific research and permits the acceptance of new information.

Yep, I kinda like this one the best. I don't know for sure whether there is a God, but I'd like to think that if there is one, this is the way that he created life.

Case closed! I win!
You can all stop arguing now and go back to figuring out ways to defeat Obama.

383 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:19:39pm

re: #379 BuddyG

The problem is, that these are assertions, and not testable. That precludes their inclusion is science.

384 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:20:15pm

re: #184 KalvinB

"Actually the ocean bottom is sinking, the great lakes bed is rising, and yes, they can prove it."

And can you prove it's been sinking at a constant rate?

One of the biggest assumptions that evolutionists make is that despite all this change from a single cell organism to life today, the earth has always been 1/3 land and the continents have always looks the same.

What if there was no ocean as we know it when the world began?

Actually, evolutionary theory makes no such assumption, and the theory of plate tectonics, supported by fossils of the same type found in identical strata in Africa and South America, prove the point that the continents have been mobile. And OF COURSE when the world began there was no ocean; this rock was too hot to allow for the condensation of water back then. In fact, changing environmental conditions provide the natural selection mechanism that operates upon species mutations, and renders them not random, but directed (by environmental pressures).

You are either abjectly ignorant concerning these matters or are just tossing out whatever gratuitous lie yopu can dream up, hoping one will stick.

385 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:20:17pm

re: #375 BuddyG

No specific relgion's dogma should ever be pushed in a public school classroom.
However, the concept of a creator is generic enough to be included. Especially in the context of scientific discussions such as what existed before the Big Bang.

The concept of a creator is a religious or faith concept, which should be dealt with during a child's faith upbringing in the home, the church or religion classes.

Children in religious homes know all about the creator from before they even start school; children in non-religious homes also, I would think, have been exposed to the idea.

Science classes should be science, not religion.

386 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:20:54pm

re: #380 Walter L. Newton

Straw man there. A creator is not science. It cannot be approached from a scientific point of view.

Considering the concept of a creator is a hypothesis.
Science is based upon hypothesis.

387 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:21:15pm

re: #378 theatheistjew

You can contact Ken Miller here and ask him

[Link: www.millerandlevine.com...]

388 Naso Tang  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:22:35pm

re: #16 Ojoe

Here is an interesting take on this loud controversy. I present it with out comment, and I'm out of here!

Chicken.


The gene theory of biology has taken a severe beating over the last 15 years or so. It’s perfectly clear that genes do not carry information to describe large segments of what we see in the biosphere (the shapes of living objects, for example, are not found in the genes at all.) If that information does not exist in genes, then it cannot possibly have evolved by way of genetic mutation or genetic drift.

The article quoted is wrong, as are all such attempts to lie about what is known. Genes do not "describe large segments of what we see", as if they were a schematic; they define the rules that result in what we see.

There are countless experiments that have identified genes that are responsible for "what we see", and they can be manipulated to change "what we see", such as growing legs or eyes on parts of flies that would not normally have them and so on.

389 swamprat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:22:37pm

re: #376 Sharmuta
It was fascinating. I was trying to figure out where the water was supposed to be coming from. As well as the land beneath it. (from where the water materialized)

390 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:22:45pm

re: #382 DesertSage

1. Theistic Evolution. This is the Catholic Pope's officially stated position, and it's embraced by many real scientists of faith. Theistic evolution accepts both the geologic and biologic records, including modern evolutionary synthesis, and posits that these are simply the tools God chose to create the natural world. Theistic evolution allows and embraces scientific research and permits the acceptance of new information.

Yep, I kinda like this one the best. I don't know for sure whether there is a God, but I'd like to think that if there is one, this is the way that he created life.

Case closed! I win!
You can all stop arguing now and go back to figuring out ways to defeat Obama.

Thank you Sage! My memory of decades past is fuzzy, but THIS sounds like what I first (back then) thought ID was saying. I was probably confusing the names.

391 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:22:52pm

ArcherB-

Whaaaa

(Also- it's just not true "nearly all Christians" believe in evolution)

We're bigots

(Also- again with the scientific facts being banned thing- lame)

ID is Free Speech

(Wrong on so many levels)

392 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:22:58pm

re: #357 Salamantis

Just say the word 'science' in God class and see how far you get in some churches...;~)

The only mention of God in science class should be silently, when students are paying they'll pass the latest pop quiz.

Actually, we just spent the past 6-weeks in our Sunday School class going over the creation of universe. Oh, and the very first thing the "teacher" said (he has a PHD and is a science professor at UT) is that the Earth is Billions of years old and the life as we know it was created through evolution. He explained the math behind the forces of nature (not that anyone got it) and went into a long discussion about the immensity of the Universe. He explained how evolution works and how we all came to be via natural selection. And all that was so incredibly unlikely that there is no way it could have all happened by chance.

How's that for God Class? Anyway, that's why it pisses me off when people say that ID'ers are all new-earthers that run around saying "God did it, that's how". There are very bright, educated scientific minds out there who believe in ID, yet do not dispute any of the science to get there. Anyway, to kill the discussion is to silence these guys and not get to hear what they have to say.

393 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:23:38pm

re: #386 BuddyG

Considering the concept of a creator is a hypothesis.
Science is based upon hypothesis.

Wrong-o. You confuse terms. From Wiki - "Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory."

The origins of life and the universe are scientific theory, not scientific hypothesis.

Walter in Golden, Co.

394 jc59  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:24:01pm

re: #379 BuddyG

Evidence for the big bang is inconsistent with a universe that has alway been.

395 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:24:05pm

re: #382 DesertSage

Sage- this is not to be confused with Phillip Johnson's idea of theistic realism.

396 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:24:06pm

re: #386 BuddyG

Nope. A hypothesis must be testable. An untestible proposition cannot be a hypothesis.

397 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:24:32pm

re: #383 Dan G.

The problem is, that these are assertions, and not testable. That precludes their inclusion is science.


There are many theories inlcuded in science class.
I'm not advocating prosletyzing for converts.
Just a simple inclusion that among the possibilites on the origin of our Universe is a creator.
Makes perfect sense since in science class kids often ask question like "what existed before the Big Bang?"

398 theatheistjew  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:24:40pm

re: #375 BuddyG

No specific relgion's dogma should ever be pushed in a public school classroom.
However, the concept of a creator is generic enough to be included. Especially in the context of scientific discussions such as what existed before the Big Bang.

The concept of a creator isn't science. Who created the creator isn't science either, and that would be the next question by putting a creator in the picture before the big bang.
It could be one line if the student asks what happened before the big bang.
Some people believe God snapped his fingers, the teacher could say. But what was it like the second before God came into being?
You just get into an theology discussion, and theology does not belong in science.

399 Naso Tang  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:24:41pm

re: #369 Dan G.

Why be prejudiced towards a universe that was created? Why couldn't it have always just been?

There's no prejudice. It just doesn't look like it's always been. Either there is deceit at play, or ignorance. I'd hate to think everyone's God was deceitful.

400 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:24:56pm

re: #384 Salamantis

tossing out whatever gratuitous lie yopu can dream up, hoping one will stick.

The wall in here has a definite aroma, and a whole bunch of downwards-heading streaks.

401 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:25:05pm

re: #372 pre-Boomer Marine brat

And upon what BODY OF FACTS do you propose to debate the overall validity of the scientifically-derived (and constantly evolving) facts upon which current evolutionary concepts are based?

Um... well, I guess you could start with the supposed violation of the second law of thermodynamics and move on from there I guess.

Or should we just not speak of such things and teach the kids like the state says we should without question?

402 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:26:07pm

re: #394 jc59

Evidence for the big bang is inconsistent with a universe that has alway been.

Perhaps some sort of "existense" that's always been?

403 stantheman  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:26:17pm

re: #361 Charles

Interesting Charles. What is 'normal' traffic approximately for a day at LGF these days? I realize that there's a difference between weekends and weekdays - please advise.

My memory may be faulty but I seem to recall that before the last election visits to LGF were ~120,000 per day. These days it's significantly lower (though I can't vouch for bugs in the counter).

I think you have me confused with someone who gives a crap.

Great comeback, real mature. Goodnight.

404 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:26:35pm

re: #194 KalvinB

"The argon we find in rocks was produced inside the rock by radioactive decay. This process, too, has been calibrated against known sources, lava flows of known historical date for instance."

K-Ar only alledgedly works for things that are 100,000 years old or older. Do we have written record of a lava flow that happened 100,000 years ago?

Sal: We have found lava flows from hundreds of millions of years ago, all the way up to the present day. And yes, they've been written up, scientifically investigated via multiple independent means, and verified via independent confirmation. Where's your write-up of God making the Universe? Were the authors of the Old Testament actually there?

"It cannot infiltrate a solid rock once the rock has solidified and it cannot remain in the rock when the rock is molten"

Really? Because that was one of the assumptions that is known to be wrong so the average starting K-Ar ratio is used to correct for errors in dating rocks with the K-Ar method.

You must work with magic rocks that have a perfect 1:0 ratio.

Sal: you must not understand the properties of noble gases. Of course they are trapped in solid rocks, but they also leave molten rocks, since one of the properties of a noble gas is that it is incapable of chemically bonding to anything.

405 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:26:37pm

re: #397 BuddyG

Adding the adjective "simple" to the front of doesn't work like lubricant... It isn't science, period.

406 brownmear  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:27:03pm

re: #346 Thanos

Ok maybe you aren't with DI, but you will note that they tend to lie. Back here on June 4 you cared enough about what goes on in schools to read the article and comment, so what changed in the intervening weeks?

Back there I cared what goes on in schools? So what changed? How about nothing! Back there I complained about discipline!? How does that relate to the current discussion?

I did not say I don't care what goes on in schools! I said religion should not be taught in schools (today). Back then I said discipline needs to be taught in schools.

So what is it? A smear? "they tend to lie". Please point out the inconsistency, if you can, thanks.

407 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:27:07pm

re: #399 Naso Tang

And what does creatio ex nihilio look like?

408 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:27:14pm

re: #403 stantheman

re: #361 Charles


I think you have me confused with someone who gives a crap.

Great comeback, real mature. Goodnight.

Grow up, you moron.

409 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:27:18pm

re: #386 BuddyG

Considering the concept of a creator is a hypothesis.
Science is based upon hypothesis.

The concept of a creator is called, by different people, religion, faith, witchcraft, chicanery, foolishness, etc.

It is not science.

410 swamprat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:27:23pm

I asked her, if in the morning, my house would be where she would come from.....Thus ending a sentence with a proposition.

411 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:27:54pm

re: #197 buzzsawmonkey

Have you never heard of continental drift?

About as much ass he's heard of genetic drift, apparently...;~)

412 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:28:01pm

re: #403 stantheman

In the dramatic exit pool, who picked 403 comments?

413 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:28:07pm

re: #312 stantheman

I note the steady dropoff in visitors to Little Green Footballs since this anti-ID crusade began. I guess it's more important than the upcoming election. Sad how we sometimes are our worst enemies....

Izzat right?

Today
Page Views: 60,600
Visits: 52,251
Yesterday
Page Views: 74,022
Visits: 63,249

Comments: 5,512,195
Today: 4,075
Yesterday: 3,502

Have any other bogus assertions that you'd like to amuse us with?

414 theatheistjew  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:28:10pm

re: #387 Thanos

You can contact Ken Miller here and ask him

[Link: www.millerandlevine.com...]

Thanks, but if I was really interested I could probably just read excerpts from his books.
It is something I'm not that concerned about, but I'm sure Dr. Miller knows exactly what he believes.

415 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:28:24pm

re: #403 stantheman

re: #361 Charles

I think you have me confused with someone who gives a crap.

Great comeback, real mature. Goodnight.

Are you an idiot? Why don't you just beg for the banning stick. Basically you just said "Hey Charles, nice carpet, can I piss on it?", Followed by, "I'm more important than you and require a response".

416 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:28:27pm

re: #401 ArcherB

Um... well, I guess you could start with the supposed violation of the second law of thermodynamics and move on from there I guess.

Or should we just not speak of such things and teach the kids like the state says we should without question?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has to to with heat entropy. And it's constantly misused by creationists.

417 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:28:49pm

re: #386 BuddyG

Considering the concept of a creator is a hypothesis.
Science is based upon hypothesis.

True enough. There is no real reason science would exclude the hypothesis of a creator a priori.

The problem with IDers is that they not only propose the hypothesis, they offer all kinds of distortions, falsehoods, invective and slander to allegedly support it.

In fact, I believe in a creator (The Creator) but I don't claim scientific evidence for this in a deceptive effort to indoctrinate my geology students with my religious beliefs.

418 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:28:59pm

re: #412 Dan G.Not me. I figured upwards of 500 before someone left in a snit.

419 Charles  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:29:39pm

re: #403 stantheman

re: #361 Charles

I think you have me confused with someone who gives a crap.

Great comeback, real mature. Goodnight.

"Mature?" I've been called lots of names, but that cuts me to the quick.

And it's a comeback with a point, in case you missed it: I've never posted anything at LGF just to be "popular," and I'm not going to start now. I could not possibly care less.

420 jorline  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:29:39pm

re: #350 stantheman

#326 Interesting Charles. What is 'normal' traffic approximately for a day at LGF these days? I realize that there's a difference between weekends and weekdays - please advise.

My memory may be faulty but I seem to recall that before the last election visits to LGF were ~120,000 per day. These days it's significantly lower (though I can't vouch for bugs in the counter).

Thanks for signing on and boosting todays numbers.

421 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:29:42pm

re: #391 Sharmuta

ArcherB-

Whaaaa

(Also- it's just not true "nearly all Christians" believe in evolution)

We're bigots

(Also- again with the scientific facts being banned thing- lame)

ID is Free Speech

(Wrong on so many levels)

First, how many Christians do you know? All of the ones I know do. Maybe you should visit a church once in a while.

Next, yes, you are a bigot. You think that I am too backwoods ignorant to discuss the merits of evolution without saying "God did it, that's wai"

Oh, it's just wrong? care to explain why or should just accept what you say is true on premise alone. Much like evolution.

Oh, I've shown where people, like yourself, say that the discussion should be banned. That is what you asked for. Did you have a point?

422 swamprat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:29:45pm

If you experience continental drift, buy wider tires, or get a chevy.

423 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:29:55pm

re: #416 Occasional Reader

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has to to with heat entropy. And it's constantly misused by creationists.

Are you trying to ban debate on thermodynamics?

424 Naso Tang  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:30:24pm

re: #312 stantheman

I note the steady dropoff in visitors to Little Green Footballs since this anti-ID crusade began. I guess it's more important than the upcoming election. Sad how we sometimes are our worst enemies....

Are you suggesting that this site should be first and foremost a matter of fundamentalist Christians against the hordes of Islam?

What's wrong with rationality against irrationality?

425 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:30:48pm

re: #421 ArcherB

You assume too much.

426 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:30:49pm

re: #416 Occasional Reader

The other bit of confusion is the fact that the 2nd law is premised upon analysis of a control volume.

427 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:31:03pm

re: #423 Sharmuta
Big Heat is ripping us off!

428 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:31:42pm

re: #393 Walter L. Newton

The origins of life and the universe are scientific theory, not scientific hypothesis


To be against any mention of even the possibility of a creator, while discussing Universe creation, when kids ask about the origins, reveals a bias.

429 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:31:46pm

re: #365 BuddyG

Then approach it from a scientific point of view.
We have a Universe. What might have created it?

I personally subscribe to the theory that the entire Universe was wished into existence by an 8-year-old boy named Shannon (who is gay).

This theory has the advantage of being just as unprovable as the competing hypotheses about "God" or "Allah" or "Brahma" creating the Universe, yet also being cuter and funnier.

430 Charles  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:31:48pm

(The visitor count did stop counting for several hours today, by the way.)

431 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:32:04pm

re: #205 KalvinB

"What in th' HELL are you talking about?!?! Maybe I misunderstand you, but this isn't a straw man, this is utter gibberish. I've NEVER heard an "evolutionist" claim that."

If the ocean is sinking then how can you say that the amount of land mass we have now is the same as it has always been.

Has it always been sinking at the same rate?

What would a sinking ocean bottom do to the rate at which various land masses pulled apart or disappeared?

Evolutionists have two views of the earth: Pangea and now. They assume that from Pangea to now took a constant rate that worked out to millions of years.

What if Pangea wasn't the complete land mass?

Sal: Didn't you miss Gondwanaland? You're learning this on the fly, aren't you?

432 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:32:31pm

re: #406 brownmear

Back then you took some obvious time to comment, and you've spent a lot of time here commenting, when you profess not to like this subject. These threads are supposedly unpopular according to some, but they regularly receive more comments than the other topics you profess to support. I don't remember seeing you comment on other threads much - perhaps it's so infrequent I missed it. Something doesn't jive here.

433 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:32:33pm

re: #401 ArcherB

Um... well, I guess you could start with the supposed violation of the second law of thermodynamics and move on from there I guess.

Or should we just not speak of such things and teach the kids like the state says we should without question?

You didn't answer my question. "I guess" shows, at best, a lack of preparation. "Or should we just not..." is an evasion which can be ripped to shreds by a college debate team.

I ask again, upon what BODY OF FACTS do you propose to debate the overall validity of the scientifically-derived (and constantly evolving) facts upon which current evolutionary concepts are based?

434 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:33:01pm

re: #428 BuddyG

There are observable facts behind the big bang (i.e. redshifts); that makes it essentially different than your false alternatives.

435 DesertSage  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:33:46pm

re: #409 reine.de.tout

The concept of a creator is called, by different people, religion, faith, witchcraft, chicanery, foolishness, etc.

It is not science.

And science is not faith, so what's your point?

I almost punched a teacher for telling my kid that evolution proves that there is no God. These teachers ought to keep their science out of my families faith. The knife cuts both ways.

436 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:33:55pm

re: #431 Salamantis
Reunite Gondwanaland!

437 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:34:01pm

re: #423 Sharmuta

Are you trying to ban debate on thermodynamics?

Exactly! Because I hate physicists!

/

438 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:34:30pm

What I don't get about this whole ID debate is the seemingly willfull obtuseness of the IDers. ID is fine, in your church, shul, mosque, temple or wherever. It is not science and does not belong in school. If you start teaching it as science and don't teach each and every religions idea of creation, people are going to howl about being excluded and discriminated against.

439 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:34:57pm

re: #434 Dan G.

There are observable facts behind the big bang (i.e. redshifts); that makes it essentially different than your false alternatives.


If you were a science teacher, and a student asked you
"what was there before the Big Bang?" how would you answer?

We don't know. And leave it at that?
Or discuss the possibilities?

440 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:35:20pm

re: #436 Dan G.

Reunite Gondwanaland!

President Obama will stop continental drift, right after he stops the rise of the oceans.

441 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:36:09pm

Oh, excellent! They Live is on.

442 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:36:14pm

re: #421 ArcherB

Not that you're worth more of a response than I already gave, but

First, how many Christians do you know? All of the ones I know do. Maybe you should visit a church once in a while.

I know plenty. I also know Jews, muslims, atheists, pagans, agnostics, an so on.

Next, yes, you are a bigot. You think that I am too backwoods ignorant to discuss the merits of evolution without saying "God did it, that's wai"

I haven't called you anything but obfuscatory. Nice discourse. Did Jesus teach you that?

Oh, it's just wrong? care to explain why or should just accept what you say is true on premise alone. Much like evolution.

I have explained it more than once on these threads- you apparently don't care.

Oh, I've shown where people, like yourself, say that the discussion should be banned. That is what you asked for. Did you have a point?

There's your talking point yet again. For the last time- show me where debate on evolution based on scientific reasoning is being banned or get a new talking point.

443 brownmear  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:36:23pm

re: #432 Thanos

Back then you took some obvious time to comment, and you've spent a lot of time here commenting, when you profess not to like this subject. These threads are supposedly unpopular according to some, but they regularly receive more comments than the other topics you profess to support. I don't remember seeing you comment on other threads much - perhaps it's so infrequent I missed it. Something doesn't jive here.

Ok, I haven't seen you recently so I won't respond. Fair enough. I couldn't answer the question to you either. There isn't a good answer from your view point. Changing the subject is a good idea!

Thanks for trying!

444 irish rose  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:36:30pm

Well, lizards, another stimulating evening for sure but its' time for me to hit the sack.

G'night.

445 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:37:14pm

re: #428 BuddyG

To be against any mention of even the possibility of a creator, while discussing Universe creation, when kids ask about the origins, reveals a bias.

Ok, you win. The next time I have a chance to mention the possible origins of the universe to some kids, I will include "some people think that the universe was created by a imaginary creature named god."

Please get your terms straight. Bias is... "In careful usage bias refers to a belief that leads to a false judgment."

You keep throwing out terms that you don't seem to understand the full meaning of.

Walter in Golden, Co.

446 Naso Tang  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:37:24pm

re: #407 Dan G.

And what does creatio ex nihilio look like?

I guess that you think that is meaningful. The point was that the evidence suggests a beginning of this universe and your questions or the fact that we don't have an answer to everything, yet, is no argument to the contrary.

447 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:38:22pm

re: #435 DesertSage

And science is not faith, so what's your point?

I almost punched a teacher for telling my kid that evolution proves that there is no God. These teachers ought to keep their science out of my families faith. The knife cuts both ways.

Well, I was responding to Buddy G., who said:

Considering the concept of a creator is a hypothesis.
Science is based upon hypothesis.

The concept of a creator is, for me, a religious and faith concept. There are some people who do not believe in God who think the idea of a creator is foolishness, etc.

The point I was trying to make to Buddy G is that the concept of a creator is not science, and does not belong in science class, in my opinion, that I came to after some long hard thought.

I would prefer that I teach my child my religion, my faith, in my home, in church, and in her religion classes. Her science classes should be science; her math classes should be math; her geography classes should be geography; her history classes should be history.

448 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:38:59pm

re: #446 Naso Tang
If we had the answer to everything we would be God. We are supposed to strive and look and question. Peer into dark corners, and over the next hill.

449 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:39:00pm

re: #439 BuddyG

First, I would've started the year with a thorough definition of what science was, and in each lesson, I'd reinforce that definition. When/If the question arose, I'd refer back to the central theme of the class (i.e. the definition of science) and they'd (with help) realize that this question cannot be handled by science since observation and experimentation is impossible.

I would end with the fact that it could be handled, if not resolved, in philosophy class (i.e. creatio ex nihilo etc...)

450 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:39:07pm

re: #419 Charles

"I've never posted anything at LGF just to be "popular," and I'm not going to start now. I could not possibly care less.

To stantheman For your information, I didn't register at LGF last fall to be in a popular place. If I'd wanted that, I could have gone to MySpace. Charles has my appreciation, and attendance, because he's RELEVANT, not popular.

/you're NOT barking up my tree

451 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:39:28pm

re: #435 DesertSage

And science is not faith, so what's your point?

I almost punched a teacher for telling my kid that evolution proves that there is no God. These teachers ought to keep their science out of my families faith. The knife cuts both ways.

You are correct. The knife does cut both ways. Religion should not be taught in school, neither should anti-religion. And contrary to what many claim, evolution does not automatically mean anti-religion.

Thank you sage for a a short statement that hit many of these problems dead on.

452 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:39:39pm

re: #435 DesertSage

And science is not faith, so what's your point?

I almost punched a teacher for telling my kid that evolution proves that there is no God. These teachers ought to keep their science out of my families faith. The knife cuts both ways.

I quite agree, scientists who say that G-D can't or doesn't exist are dundering, egotistical, rabid secularists and certainly don't help science in the long run. (e.g. Dawkins certainly doesn't win fans among the religious.) If a scientist professes to know that G-D doesn't or can't exist he's being entirely unscientific.

453 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:40:33pm

re: #445 Walter L. Newton

Ok, you win. The next time I have a chance to mention the possible origins of the universe to some kids, I will include "some people think that the universe was created by a super being imaginary creature named God."

Fixed it for ya.
By the way, check this out.

454 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:40:42pm

re: #439 BuddyG

If you were a science teacher, and a student asked you
"what was there before the Big Bang?" how would you answer?

We don't know. And leave it at that?
Or discuss the possibilities?

From Paul Davies "The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event."

Ok, that's what I would say. Does that work for you?

Walter in Golden, Co.

455 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:40:56pm

re: #452 Thanos

re: #452 Thanos

And I agree with both of you on this, too. Religious topics, whether "there is a God", or whether it's "there is no God", should be kept out of the classroom. Period.

456 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:41:25pm

re: #446 Naso Tang

The universe is everything. To state that it was created, is to state that something came from nothing.

457 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:42:11pm

re: #452 Thanos

Einstein, or one of those very smart guys said "God is in the details", like looking for sub-sub atomic particles. What the heck holds everything together?! Really cool science.

458 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:42:14pm

re: #373 irish rose

Obama '08!

You did that on purpose. Stinker.

459 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:42:37pm

re: #412 Dan G.

In the dramatic exit pool, who picked 403 comments?

damn..I thought I had the over...

460 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:43:16pm

re: #216 KalvinB

"we aren't faced with discrete and separate rocks rattling around in a jar; we are faced with solid laters of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary strata, and they don't just up and reverse position "

Except for those areas where the layers are upside down.

Sal: Layers don't full in from top to bottom, because there's already something under them; DOH! They also don't separate themselves from adjacent strata and flip like pancakes.

You assume the layers were formed at a constant rate. But I can get layers of rocks by shaking a jar. I also have rocks popping up in my backyard that I know were buried a month ago more than 6" because I rototilled them out and put several layers of rockless dirt on top.

Sal: Molten magma sorts itself out by specific gravity, but once it hardens, it pretty much stays in place. When magma is thrown up by a volcano, the strata remain in the layers they were in before, just poked up a bit, and then overlain with the lava that covers them from the eruption. (PS when it's still underground it's magma, but after it's erupted it's lava - same molten rock, though).

You assume those layers weren't formed by the natural process of earth sorting itself out like my backyard does. But it's certainly a possibility.

Sal: your rockless dirt was rototilled, so there were a lot of airspaces introduced into it; basically, you fluffed it up. Once rains fall and gravity does its number, the air leaves, and the soil layer thins, and it may LOOK like the rocks are rising, but in fact the covering soil is just flattening out. Your mising a few rocks earlier, then finding them later, is no threat to the edifice of plate tectonics, geology, vulcanology, seismic science, and continental drift.

461 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:43:47pm

re: #449 Dan G.

First, I would've started the year with a thorough definition of what science was, and in each lesson, I'd reinforce that definition. When/If the question arose, I'd refer back to the central theme of the class (i.e. the definition of science) and they'd (with help) realize that this question cannot be handled by science since observation and experimentation is impossible.

I would end with the fact that it could be handled, if not resolved, in philosophy class (i.e. creatio ex nihilo etc...)

With all the worthless electives I suffered through in school I've always thought they needed Philosophy and Theology. At least those are offered in college. Unfortunately philosophy classes in my opinion have tended to be too "German".

Keep everything where it belongs. And stop putting Sociology into Civics and History.

462 DesertSage  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:43:56pm

re: #452 Thanos

I quite agree, scientists who say that G-D can't or doesn't exist are dundering, egotistical, rabid secularists and certainly don't help science in the long run. (e.g. Dawkins certainly doesn't win fans among the religious.) If a scientist professes to know that G-D doesn't or can't exist he's being entirely unscientific.

That was a great post.

I believe we've all come to a consensus here. Now, what are we going to do about Obama?

463 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:44:04pm

I can't believe none of you are enthusiastic about They Live. How can you turn this down?

464 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:44:06pm

re: #415 Mars Needs Neocons

Are you an idiot? Why don't you just beg for the banning stick. Basically you just said "Hey Charles, nice carpet, can I piss on it?", Followed by, "I'm more important than you and require a response".


really..Stan Musial would be appalled...

465 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:44:16pm

re: #449 Dan G.


The inclusion of the possibility of a creator is certainly relevant to the subject matter.

466 NomadOfNorad  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:44:55pm

Here's another bit of lunacy in Texas:

Texas PC Repair Now Requires PI License

From its Texas Rangers to its enthusiastic take on the death penalty, the Lone Star State has long been known for its aggressive stance on law enforcement. Thanks to a strange new law, it's a sting that may soon be felt by a number of the state's computer-repair people.

A recently passed law requires that Texas computer-repair technicians have a private-investigator license, according to a story posted by a Dallas-Fort Worth CW affiliate.

In order to obtain said license, technicians must receive a criminal justice degree or participate in a three-year apprenticeship. Those shops that refuse to participate will be forced to shut down. Violators of the new law can be hit with a $4,000 dollar fine and up to a year in jail, penalties that apply to customers who seek out their services.

Some of the area's larger companies already employee technicians with PI licenses, a fact which generally doesn't apply to small computer repair shops.

467 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:45:26pm

re: #224 Scorch

I am not into this belief we have all evolved from some kind of slithering thing which eventually made it to land and grew legs. There had to be a beginning somewhere created by something and where in the heck did that original something come from....or did it just evolve from nothing?

You need to read about a dozen threads, then come back.

468 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:45:28pm

re: #453 BuddyG

Fixed it for ya.
By the way, check this out.

So, what's the point. I can link you to scientists who believe that aliens are anal probing humans on a daily basis. What does that prove?

Walter in Golden, Co.

469 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:45:39pm

re: #461 Mars Needs Neocons

Agreed.

470 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:45:54pm

re: #455 reine.de.tout

re: #452 Thanos

And I agree with both of you on this, too. Religious topics, whether "there is a God", or whether it's "there is no God", should be kept out of the classroom. Period.

Whoa you mean that Thanos proves that MPD exists?

/

471 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:45:56pm

re: #415 Mars Needs Neocons

My all time favorite is still the poster who thought he could get banned by telling Charles to get a hair cut.

472 swamprat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:46:03pm

re: #463 Occasional Reader

I can't believe none of you are enthusiastic about They Live. How can you turn this down?



If there was a "they live" channel, my wife would watch it 24/7/365.

473 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:46:16pm

re: #465 BuddyG

Did you even read my post?

474 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:46:44pm

re: #463 Occasional Reader

I can't believe none of you are enthusiastic about They Live. How can you turn this down?

I'll see your "They Live" and raise you a "Mask of Satan".

475 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:47:02pm

re: #452 Thanos

If a scientist professes to know that G-D doesn't or can't exist he's being entirely unscientific.

With one caveat: It depends on how you define "God".
(I.e., if an essential characteristic of one's definition of "God" is that "God" created the entire universe and all life forms over a six-day period about 6,000 years ago, then THAT definition of "God" is scientifically disprovable.

476 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:47:02pm

re: #457 pingjockey

Einstein, or one of those very smart guys said "God is in the details", like looking for sub-sub atomic particles. What the heck holds everything together?! Really cool science.

Yep. Very spooky stuff and getting spookier with each new round of research.

477 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:47:43pm

re: #465 BuddyG
Fine, whose creator? Allah, Yaweh, Budda, Merlin(Druid), The stone images on Easter Island? Whose version are you gonna pick? Can't do them all, too many and not enough time in class.

478 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:47:45pm

re: #468 Walter L. Newton

So, what's the point.

Point is that science & spirituality can co-exist.
They certainly did in George Lemaitre's mind.

479 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:47:46pm

re: #416 Occasional Reader

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has to to with heat entropy. And it's constantly misused by creationists.

Then I guess Wikipedia is misquoting it to then.

In a simple manner, the second law states that "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy" rather than decrease it. A way of looking at the second law for non-scientists is to look at entropy as a measure of chaos. So, for example, a broken cup has less order and more chaos than an intact one. Likewise, solid crystals, the most organized form of matter, have very low entropy values; and gases, which are highly disorganized, have high entropy values.

I think you are thinking of the first law. You Darwinists always mix those up!

The first law:

More simply, the First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; rather, the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained.
480 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:48:15pm

re: #235 KalvinB

"Only in KalvinB's mind."

I enjoy these discussions. Having a geologist lie to me about pristine samples that I know for a fact don't exist because Scientific articles have said otherwise is interesting to me.

Talk Origins, Wikipedia and University pages have been enlightening.

It's amazing how many people get pissed off just because you challenge them to explain their views in detail and think about other possibilities.

Once the scientist has spoken the thinking has been done I suppose.

The creationist dog barks, but the caravan evolves on.

481 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:48:30pm

re: #477 pingjockey


No specific religion's deity. Just include the concept of a creator.

482 Spar Kling  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:48:49pm

The dead hand of Darwin continues to strangle free scientific inquiry just as Aristotle's did during the Middle Ages.

The dogmatism in schools also presents the false perception that everything is already known and well understood. Dogmatism is contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry, but is the standard fare of textbooks.

You can criticize the people who work with school boards and the textbook selection process, but unless you want to impose control by an elite rather than a democratic process, you'll just have to endure freedom of thought and the possibility of dissent.

483 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:48:50pm

The rhetoric is always revealing.

484 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:49:00pm

re: #460 Salamantis

Sal: your rockless dirt was rototilled, so there were a lot of airspaces introduced into it; basically, you fluffed it up. Once rains fall and gravity does its number, the air leaves, and the soil layer thins, and it may LOOK like the rocks are rising, but in fact the covering soil is just flattening out. Your mising a few rocks earlier, then finding them later, is no threat to the edifice of plate tectonics, geology, vulcanology, seismic science, and continental drift.

Don't throw these clearly understood facts at him. He'll leap into bed, crank the electric blanket up to nine and assume the fetal position.

/sarc

485 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:49:12pm

re: #473 Dan G.

Did you even read my post?


Let me jump in. I don't think he is really reading anything. Ecery single post and reply of his has simply been some pithy saying or circular comment, never really discussing the issue.

It's like saying "I do believe in spooks... I do believe in spooks" over and over, with out every having to commit to a reason for that belief.

Walter in Golden, Co.

486 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:49:12pm

re: #476 Shiplord Kirel
But really great toys. Lets speed up atoms to almost light speed and smash them together and see what we get!

487 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:49:20pm

re: #464 joecitizen

really..Stan Musial would be appalled...

Not really a sports guy, don't get the reference. Explain, please.

re: #466 NomadOfNorad

Here's another bit of lunacy in Texas:

Texas PC Repair Now Requires PI License

From its Texas Rangers to its enthusiastic take on the death penalty, the Lone Star State has long been known for its aggressive stance on law enforcement. Thanks to a strange new law, it's a sting that may soon be felt by a number of the state's computer-repair people.

A recently passed law requires that Texas computer-repair technicians have a private-investigator license, according to a story posted by a Dallas-Fort Worth CW affiliate.

In order to obtain said license, technicians must receive a criminal justice degree or participate in a three-year apprenticeship. Those shops that refuse to participate will be forced to shut down. Violators of the new law can be hit with a $4,000 dollar fine and up to a year in jail, penalties that apply to customers who seek out their services.

Some of the area's larger companies already employee technicians with PI licenses, a fact which generally doesn't apply to small computer repair shops.

Ok this is officially nuts.

488 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:50:00pm

re: #481 BuddyG

No specific religion's deity. Just include the concept of a creator.

Allah! Come on down! You're the next contestant on The Origins of Life!

489 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:50:21pm

re: #474 Thanos

I'll see your "They Live" and raise you a "Mask of Satan".

Ah, Netflix, here I come.

490 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:50:39pm

re: #481 BuddyG
Hmmm. Maybe, but I still see all kinds of sticky wickets.

491 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:50:58pm

re: #443 brownmear

Ok, I haven't seen you recently so I won't respond. Fair enough. I couldn't answer the question to you either. There isn't a good answer from your view point. Changing the subject is a good idea!

Thanks for trying!


huh?

492 swamprat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:51:10pm

re: #482 Spar Kling I dinged you up. That was real poetry. .......Not reasoned debate, but excellent rhetoric!

493 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:51:26pm

re: #478 BuddyG

Point is that science & spirituality can co-exist.
They certainly did in George Lemaitre's mind.

And I see little green men, so it's TRUE. Why don't you offer some real input to this topic, instead of the circular reasoning you are fostering on us?

Walter in Golden, Co.

494 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:51:34pm

re: #479 ArcherB

And just where is this entropy accumulating? Read the second law, verbatim. All it says is that some energy that was input into an engine (i.e. energy transformer) is transformed into a state that that particular engine cannot use. Ignoring the fact that the second law is also entirely premised upon analyis of a control volume leads to the reification of entropy, as opposed to understanding that one engine's entropy is another's fuel.

495 talon_262  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:51:50pm

re: #72 thedopefishlives

Hi, I'm the dopefish and I have a confession to make.

I'm a Christian and a young-earth creationist. (Flood of ding-downs.)

With that out of the way, I agree that ID and creationism should NOT be taught in schools. ID is just a half-baked attempt to force creationism where it doesn't belong, and creationism is - well, a religious belief. And for the record, I do believe in evolution insofar as it is observable in the laboratory. (Another flood of ding-downs.)

Now, that's a reasonable argument...teach hard science in science class and leave the religious arguments to religious classes or church. How hard can that be?

496 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:51:53pm

re: #461 Mars Needs Neocons

Unfortunately philosophy classes in my opinion have tended to be too "German".

I was "saved from" my philosophy minor by an existentialism prof who taught with a decidedly pragmatic, even down-home, style. You probably would have loved him.

497 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:52:07pm

re: #488 Sharmuta

Okay, that got a for real laugh out loud!

498 NomadOfNorad  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:52:08pm

re: #487 Mars Needs Neocons

Ok this is officially nuts.

Yeah, you noticed that, eh? WTF were they thinking?!?

I mean, I can imagine them being concerned that a PC repairbeing might go through your HDD and might see something personal... but they gotta take a whole criminal justice degree?!?

499 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:52:26pm

re: #479 ArcherB

Wow. You're citing Wikipedia to support your understanding of physics... and not even correctly.

So, what do you think the "thermo" part stands for? Broken teacups?

500 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:53:03pm

re: #475 Occasional Reader

With one caveat: It depends on how you define "God".
(I.e., if an essential characteristic of one's definition of "God" is that "God" created the entire universe and all life forms over a six-day period about 6,000 years ago, then THAT definition of "God" is scientifically disprovable.

Age of earth you can prove, existance or non existance of G-D you can't.

501 yehoshua  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:53:04pm

Since prayer was banned from public schools in the early 1960's, civility between people has just about disappeared. When you take God out of daily life, the law of the jungle holds sway and people forget that they are ultimately accountable to a Higher Power for their actions.
Perhaps atonement will come and civility will reutrn when Creationism is put back into the classroom.

502 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:53:09pm

re: #473 Dan G.


Yes I read your post. And you would refer creator questions to elsewhere, such as philosophy class.

My response is that creator questions are relevant in science class
because the subject material often prompts such questions.
You see, discussing the possibility of a creator during science class is not shoving religion down kids throats, it's the kids asking about what might have created everything.

503 NomadOfNorad  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:53:18pm

re: #499 Occasional Reader

Wow. You're citing Wikipedia to support your understanding of physics... and not even correctly.

So, what do you think the "thermo" part stands for? Broken teacups?

Thermos bottles, maybe? :D

504 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:54:03pm

re: #433 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You didn't answer my question. "I guess" shows, at best, a lack of preparation. "Or should we just not..." is an evasion which can be ripped to shreds by a college debate team.

I ask again, upon what BODY OF FACTS do you propose to debate the overall validity of the scientifically-derived (and constantly evolving) facts upon which current evolutionary concepts are based?

I'm not going to sit here an plan the discussion. I gave an example of th type of thing that could be discussed. It kinda kills the whole point of a FREE discussion if you plan the whole thing out...
or...
wait for it...

BAN CERTAIN TOPICS.


And I was on a debate team. This is not a CX or LD debate and there is no judge or rules. Otherwise, you have 8 minutes to make your rebuttal.

505 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:54:42pm

re: #463 Occasional Reader

I can't believe none of you are enthusiastic about They Live. How can you turn this down?


hey,I dinged ya fer crissakes...

506 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:54:54pm

re: #471 Sharmuta

My all time favorite is still the poster who thought he could get banned by telling Charles to get a hair cut.

You're kidding. I missed that one. Hopefully he found another creative way to get banned.

re: #496 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I was "saved from" my philosophy minor by an existentialism prof who taught with a decidedly pragmatic, even down-home, style. You probably would have loved him.

Nice, I personally haven't experienced Philosophy class, but have known many who have, and have read horror stories of what is taught. Sounds like you got lucky.

re: #498 NomadOfNorad

Yeah, you noticed that, eh? WTF were they thinking?!?

I mean, I can imagine them being concerned that a PC repairbeing might go through your HDD and might see something personal... but they gotta take a whole criminal justice degree?!?

The basic concept is sound. The execution is garbage.

507 NomadOfNorad  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:54:58pm

re: #501 yehoshua

Since prayer was banned from public schools in the early 1960's, civility between people has just about disappeared. When you take God out of daily life, the law of the jungle holds sway and people forget that they are ultimately accountable to a Higher Power for their actions.
Perhaps atonement will come and civility will reutrn when Creationism is put back into the classroom.

I was with you up to the last sentence... then you skewed into la-la land.

Bringing prayer back into schools, I'd support... but...

508 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:55:01pm

re: #501 yehoshua

The DI people are lying about their intentions. That isn't civil.

509 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:55:02pm

re: #500 Thanos

I'll disagree with you here based on how O.R. premised his statement. If you present a definition of god that contains contradictions, then you can disprove, at least those predicated qualities of, the god as it was defined.

510 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:55:09pm

re: #500 Thanos

Age of earth you can prove, existance or non existance of G-D you can't.

Like I said; depends on what you mean by "God".

511 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:55:24pm

re: #236 jc59

Here is a link to a piece by David Berlinski, published in the April 2008 issue of Commentary magazine. Has anyone read it? Only the teaser is available to non-subscribers.

[Link: www.commentarymagazine.com...]

And here are the letters to the editor...

[Link: www.commentarymagazine.com...]

Berlinski's most recent book is Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics . He is a senior fellow of .. (sinister, dark music plays in the background) the Discovery Institute."

And his field is mathematics. It's remarkable what a nonbiologist can bring himself to believe about biological theories, especially considering his religious predispositions. It's kinda like Steven Jay Gould asking 'Where's the beef?' in number theory, just worse than that.

512 FinnAgain  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:55:44pm

re: #132 Thanos

Whoops. Hit the wrong dingerator :(

re: #129 ArcherB

First of all, if you believe in God, you believe in ID.

Wrong.


That said, no matter how whacked out these guys are, Don McLeroy, Steve Abrams and whoever else, do we really want laws that forbid even talking about the merits of evolution? Isn't challenging the merits of theory one of the basic principles of the Scientific method?

Talking Point Number 3: but science should be challenged (with more science), and evolution is open to challenge (from science) so what's wrong with it being challenged by a non-testable, non-falsifiable (religious) hypothesis and then having that (religious) hypothesis taught to our children in the public schools?

re: #122 pre-Boomer Marine brat

updinged for a cool movie reference.

re: #118 right_on_target

Evolution is an incontrovertible fact.
Theories of evolutionary mechanics are apt to change and be revised.

513 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:56:33pm

re: #502 BuddyG

Yes I read your post. And you would refer creator questions to elsewhere, such as philosophy class.

My response is that creator questions are relevant in science class
because the subject material often prompts such questions.
You see, discussing the possibility of a creator during science class is not shoving religion down kids throats, it's the kids asking about what might have created everything.


Then it would be all right with you if teachers discussed alternate sexual lifestyles in biology class if a student queried the teacher about that?

Walter in Golden, Co.

514 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:57:14pm

re: #513 Walter L. Newton

Then it would be all right with you if teachers discussed alternate sexual lifestyles in biology class if a student queried the teacher about that?

No, health class.

515 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:57:29pm

re: #513 Walter L. Newton

Unfortunately Walter I think they already do in some schools.

516 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:57:31pm

There's that talking point again....

517 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:57:45pm

re: #512 FinnAgain

updinged for a cool movie reference.

And what am I? Chopped liver? How much cooler can you get than, "PUT... ON... THE GLASSES! [WALLOP]"

518 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:57:57pm

re: #239 ArcherB

Oh, well, let's ban all discussion about it then. Hell, let's hope that Hezbollah doesn't try to use mathematics to try to destroy Israel or we'll have to ban all math classes too! And if Iran tries to use school in general to take over the Mid-East, we won't be able to send our kids to school anymore.

While my sarc is a bit radical, that is what you are claiming. Because a group of fundie new-Earthers want to force discussion on the merits of evolution, we must not discuss the merits of evolution.

How's this: If a teacher wants to have a class discussion over the merits of evolution, that's fine. We all agree that she should not break out a Bible. We all agree that the discussion should stay 100% on science and not bring up religion at all (unless, of course to answer a student's question... probably by referring him to his local religious institution... and nothing more). But to say that it simply can not be discussed is like no different than burning books. You are literally silencing a view because you don't agree with it. I don't agree with it either, but I'm not about to silence my opponents because I don't agree (fairness doctrine, anyone?)

You're not silencing the religious view; you're just redirecting it to its appropriate venue of expression, which is most definitely NOT a public high school science class.

519 Wendya  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:58:05pm

re: #14 Sharmuta

Why is it no one ever complains about the thread topic when it's a music thread?

Persecution is a hard sell when it comes to Jazz vs Rock.

520 Amy Proctor  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:58:15pm

amateurs, much less enemies of knowledge?

Here's an enemy of knowledge: 2 months ago I watched in hysterics as geeky NASA scientists talked about the shuttle in flight as they pounded their chests to boldly proclaim the newest theory making headway in the scientific community that may finally be able to answer the question evolution has failed to in the last 150+ years: "Where did the first micro-organism come from?" Alas, NASA et al scientists are zeroing in on the realization that, yes, ALIENS implanted the first life form into our solar system.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, ALIENS did it and conservatives are joining forces with those bozos. Talk about the enemy of knowledge! You guys are aligning yourselves with the likes of Dennis Kucinick and his flying saucer theories.

ID isn't a fundamentalist religious doctrine. It simply answers the question evolution cannot, which is, where did the first living organism come from?

It is very sound to balance out faulty and ever changing science with another "theory" that has plenty of archaeological, biological and scientific evidence to support it. No one can prove that God created the world just as no one can prove we are a result of some random accident. The bill Jindal signed simply decriminalizes the science behind Intelligent Design.

The reason people oppose (and ridicule) ID is because if, just IF, we acknowledge there may be a creator behind our existence, each individual will have to contemplate what that means. "If I am created, what is my relationship to the Creator?" This is a discussion not meant for the classroom but provokes the same natural contemplation as people have to the idea that we are all random products of evolution.

We can see by examples of Stalin and Hitler where that logic has the potential to lead, or at our worst problems in society. STDs, abortion, crime, greed... are all results of human understanding that there is no creator but us. We are our own god.

When 72.2% of all scientists profess a DISBELIEF in God, and another 20.8% are agnostic, it effects their data because it effects their hypothesis. There is a clear agenda in the evolution curriculum and it is to discredit ID as a legit alternative because these atheist scientists refuse to be scientific and absorb all the information available.

521 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:58:16pm

re: #502 BuddyG

You are ignoring the definition of science. Should masturbation, fornication, cunnilingus, and fellatio be discussed in science class since it might be asked about when covering sexual reproduction? No. Children do not know what is appropriate for the given subject matter, so their questions should not dictate the direction that the course takes. A disciplined teacher should address the question with the express purpose of telling the child when and where such questions are appropriate, and that they are not appropriate in science class.

522 DesertSage  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:58:26pm

re: #493 Walter L. Newton

Hey Walter, how do you know that there isn't a creator? You seem pretty damn sure of yourself, equating belief in a creator to belief in little green men.

And I'm not talking about the ID type of creator, I'm talking about the theistic one. The one who many believe created the universe. Yeah, you get your jollies ridiculing people of faith here (hahaha), but you don't know, any more than anyone else on the planet...whether there is a creator or not.

Sage in LA, Ca.
my little added touch

523 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:58:29pm

re: #492 swamprat

I dinged you up. That was real poetry. .......Not reasoned debate, but excellent rhetoric!

Yes. That first sentence reminded me of Snoopy of decades past, sitting on top of his doghouse with a typewriter, trying to be an author, writing: "It was a dark and stormy night..."

It got my pulse pounding.

524 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:58:48pm

Teach the science of evolution in science class, but leave the secularism at home. Teach the history of mankind's spiritual component in history class, but leave the religion at home. By teaching both, the student will always question and explore - scientifically and/or spiritually - the universe and humanity's place within. Lump of flesh or spiritual being or both?

525 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:58:51pm

re: #482 Spar Kling

The dead hand of Darwin continues to strangle free scientific inquiry just as Aristotle's did during the Middle Ages.

The dogmatism in schools also presents the false perception that everything is already known and well understood. Dogmatism is contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry, but is the standard fare of textbooks.

You can criticize the people who work with school boards and the textbook selection process, but unless you want to impose control by an elite rather than a democratic process, you'll just have to endure freedom of thought and the possibility of dissent.

Now there's a mass of logical inconsistency. Aristotle was an empiricist, Plato was the elitist who believed the supernatural was more important than what's in front of us. "The Dead Hand of Darwin" lies in a Christian Grave, in a Christian graveyard.

The slam on Aristotle reveals you however, as he was the father of the scientific method. Just fess up, you hate all science right?

526 Amy Proctor  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:58:58pm

PART II

I could go into how sedimentary rock doesn't take millions of years but mere hours to form, or the problem with carbon dating but maybe next time, but here's what the genius scientists who swear by evolution at all costs come up with: Scientists on Why There Aren't Human Bones Older than 10,000 Years in the Americas (video about 1 min 10 sec) HILARIOUS

David Meltzer, PhD: You can literally count on one hand with maybe a couple of extra fingers skeletal remains that are older than about 10,000 years of age.
Partly we suspect that’s due to the fact that these folks are highly mobile. They’re not buying their dead in cemeteries as we understand them today.

David George, PhD: It’s also difficult to bury a human being without a shovel. Many of them were actually scaffolds burials where the dead body would be placed in trees. When you do that, the remains just don’t survive. The carnivores and scavengers come along and clean them up pretty well.

Aliens did it, anyone? So humans weren’t bright enough to invent the shovel but they had the ingenuity to somehow hoist their dead into treetops where scavengers ate even the bones? I didn’t know scavengers ate bones, or at least EVERY SINGLE BONE OLDER THAN 9,999 YEARS!

We've pandered to liberalism long enough. It's time to put some intelligence back into the study of biology and other sciences and and be honest about where the evidence leads.

527 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 8:59:25pm

re: #515 pingjockey

Unfortunately Walter I think they already do in some schools.

That's fine with me. I was just tying to make a point using Buddyg's way of questioning.

Walter in Golden, Co.

528 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:00:02pm

re: #487 Mars Needs Neocons
great old ballplayer...Stan the Man...means nothing..just dickin' around...

529 lostlakehiker  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:00:13pm

While we're at it, let's teach the strengths and weaknesses of the atomic theory of matter. Let's teach the strengths and weaknesses of Newton's theory of gravity. And let's do it right, by teaching the alternative theories of Einstein and general relativity, on the one hand, and the alternative theory of Turtles-All-The-Way, in a nod to folk science.

After all, they're all just theories. In one sense of the word, that is to say, coherent logical structures that parsimoniously and accurately account for a wealth of observations, and that correctly predicted things nobody would otherwise have dreamed possible. And in the other sense of the word, theory, as in, my theory is the Dodgers will win because they're playing in their home stadium on the second Monday of August, and they've won their last three games under those exact circumstances, except the one time it was a new moon.

530 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:00:18pm

re: #501 yehoshua

Since prayer was banned from public schools in the early 1960's, civility between people has just about disappeared. When you take God out of daily life, the law of the jungle holds sway and people forget that they are ultimately accountable to a Higher Power for their actions.
Perhaps atonement will come and civility will reutrn when Creationism is put back into the classroom.

You have a valid point on the attitude of public school in the past. However, civility would not return if things change back. Islam will demand their piece of the pie, the secularists would become much more hostile, and nothing will have been accomplished.

Also, don't you think that the problems now stem more from a total societal cause rather than just the school situation? I observe behavior and I find that the primary reason for the behaviors we see in society now is more connected to the over permissiveness of liberal parents, absentee parentage, and the constant drumbeat of the press pushing the negative.

(and lets not even talk of how the press glorifies horrific events to suit their agenda du jour. How many more years are we going to be forced to relive Columbine? Why do so many of these nutjob school shooters commit their acts around the Columbine anniversery? Could it be because they know they will get the same kind of immortality?)


Sorry to go on so long, it's my bed time and I'm tired.

531 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:00:42pm

re: #510 Occasional Reader

Like I said; depends on what you mean by "God".

I understand your point friend.

532 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:00:51pm

re: #488 Sharmuta

Allah! Come on down! You're the next contestant on The Origins of Life!

Which part of "No specific religion's deity." did you not understand?

This is my point. He said No specific religion's deity." and YOU BROUGHT UP ALLAH. It's as if you can't comprehend the idea that you can not debate evolution without a God. Are you mental or what?

Now, answer the question I've asked repeatedly... Should science classes be allowed to discuss the merits, pro and con of evolution. Yes or No. You say that no one thinks it should be banned, so let me ask you again, do YOU think that science classes be allowed to discuss the merits, pro and con of evolution. Should be an easy question to answer.

533 swamprat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:00:54pm

re: #501 yehoshua
Needs work.

534 talon_262  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:01:05pm

re: #312 stantheman

I note the steady dropoff in visitors to Little Green Footballs since this anti-ID crusade began. I guess it's more important than the upcoming election. Sad how we sometimes are our worst enemies....

No, the anti-science, pro-ID Luddites showed their true colors and stopped coming back or, if they were engaging in conduct unbecoming a civilized person, were shown the door by Charles and Stinky.

Nice try, but you lose....better luck next time.

535 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:01:23pm

Ah, great scene coming up. "I am here to chew bubblegum..."

536 pingjockey  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:01:24pm

re: #527 Walter L. Newton
OK. I am probably confusing biology and health class anyway.

537 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:01:50pm

re: #511 Salamantis

Joke.

A physicist, biologist and mathematician were sitting out side of a cafe enjoying their favorite cafeinatted beverage when they all noticed two people enter an apartment across the street, followed by three people leaving a short while later. This caused them to raise their eyebrows in curiosity and each then decided to present an explanation. The physicist said, "Bah, the observation was flawed". The biologist said, "Aha! The first two reproduced to create the 3rd." The mathematician said, "Now only one more person needs to enter the building for it to be empty again."

538 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:02:05pm

re: #532 ArcherB

Are you trying to ban discussion on allah?

539 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:02:32pm

re: #450 pre-Boomer Marine brat

To stantheman For your information, I didn't register at LGF last fall to be in a popular place. If I'd wanted that, I could have gone to MySpace. Charles has my appreciation, and attendance, because he's RELEVANT, not popular.

/you're NOT barking up my tree

High-five!

540 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:02:36pm

re: #522 DesertSage

Hey Walter, how do you know that there isn't a creator? You seem pretty damn sure of yourself, equating belief in a creator to belief in little green men.

And I'm not talking about the ID type of creator, I'm talking about the theistic one. The one who many believe created the universe. Yeah, you get your jollies ridiculing people of faith here (hahaha), but you don't know, any more than anyone else on the planet...whether there is a creator or not.

Sage in LA, Ca.
my little added touch

Sage, I'm not on the "there isn't a creator and I know better" bandwagon. I'm just talking about whether a creator concept should be included in a science class.

Walter in Golden, Co.

541 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:02:53pm

Wow. He got 11 shots out of a 6-shot Remington 870!

542 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:03:05pm

re: #532 ArcherB

The DI scientists first need to prove the faults of evolutionary theory to their peers, before they slip their ideas into the science classes.

543 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:03:51pm

re: #244 KalvinB

"As I said above; scientific debates and disputes are fine; they refine, elaborate, and improve the theory by honing its details. But challenging Evolutionary theory via recourse to untestable religious assertions would be like trying to scientifically check stars to see if God made them. Not only are both of these impossible to do, but the very attempt to try demonstrates a massive and fundamental confusion as to what science and faith are, as well as an abject lack of comprehension concerning the decisive differences between them."

Is it a religious assertion that contamination will skew dating methods that are sensitive to the billionth of a gram?

Sal: It is creationist wishful thinking that contamination will skew dating methods on all rocks.

Assumptions are faith.

Sal: well, you must be having faith problems, because you have made a garbage truck load of bad assumptions.

So until evolution rids itself of assumptions, it takes faith to accept it.

Evolutionary theory scientists test their assertions. Those that fail empirical testing, and those that cannot be tested, are rejected. Careers can be made by discovering, or correcting, flaws. How are your religious dogma tests panning out? Or are you just accepting those dogmas on faith? Quite a set of ungrounded assumptions there...

544 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:04:52pm

re: #528 joecitizen

great old ballplayer...Stan the Man...means nothing..just dickin' around...

Ok, you had kinda lost me for a minute.

545 theparson  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:05:06pm

re: #501 yehoshua

Prayer has never been taken out of schools. That's a myth propagated by certain people with an agenda (i.e. to raise money on TV). There is no universal prohibition on prayer and it is a specious argument.

546 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:05:35pm

re: #312 stantheman

I note the steady dropoff in visitors to Little Green Footballs since this anti-ID crusade began. I guess it's more important than the upcoming election. Sad how we sometimes are our worst enemies....

See?  The drugs will help you with those imaginary friends.

}:)     [Ooops, sorry, I don't boo hoo hoo on the first lie, but keep trying.]

547 theatheistjew  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:06:14pm

re: #526 Amy Proctor

PART II

I could go into how sedimentary rock doesn't take millions of years but mere hours to form, or the problem with carbon dating but maybe next time, but here's what the genius scientists who swear by evolution at all costs come up with: Scientists on Why There Aren't Human Bones Older than 10,000 Years in the Americas (video about 1 min 10 sec) HILARIOUS

Aliens did it, anyone? So humans weren’t bright enough to invent the shovel but they had the ingenuity to somehow hoist their dead into treetops where scavengers ate even the bones? I didn’t know scavengers ate bones, or at least EVERY SINGLE BONE OLDER THAN 9,999 YEARS!

We've pandered to liberalism long enough. It's time to put some intelligence back into the study of biology and other sciences and and be honest about where the evidence leads.


The Origins of Life Made Easy

It is wilfully ignorant creationists like you Amy, that is responsible for the many people we see leaving the church.
You beat your chest and come across as a know it all, but you are peddling nonsense that has been refuted over and over again.

Thank you. You gave me a chance to show more lurkers this great video on why God was not needed when life was first created.

Thanks again. You are making the world a more secular place. The internet is killing the creationist movement.

548 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:06:22pm

Amy:

What a crock of shit. Please do tell me you understand the difference between RNA and DNA precursors being found in meteors and little green men. Because if you don't you are stupid. On the other hand if you do understand the difference, then you are being disingenuous to the extreme.

549 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:07:04pm

re: #442 Sharmuta

First, if you have an issue with something I've said in a previous thread, respond there. Moving along.

There's your talking point yet again. For the last time- show me where debate on evolution based on scientific reasoning is being banned or get a new talking point.

I did that in posts 331, 340, 370 and 421. Now, answer the question I've asked you so many times:
Should science classes be free to discuss the merits, pro and con of evolution? Yes or No.

550 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:07:13pm

re: #545 theparson

Hi parson; did you ever get down to Galveston the other day?

551 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:07:32pm

re: #541 Occasional Reader

Wow. He got 11 shots out of a 6-shot Remington 870!

Follow that up with Hell Comes to Frogtown and then you have the ultimate viewing night. Just suspend all logic.

552 theparson  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:07:41pm

re: #548 Thanos

Amy:

What a crock of shit. Please do tell me you understand the difference between RNA and DNA precursors being found in meteors and little green men. Because if you don't you are stupid. On the other hand if you do understand the difference, then you are being disingenuous to the extreme.

Gee, I don't know the difference. I'll accept ignorant but not stupid.

553 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:07:47pm

Amy: If you aren't stupid, then what does the bible say about not bearing false witness?

554 Wendya  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:08:13pm

re: #520 Amy Proctor

72.2% of all scientists profess a DISBELIEF in God, and another 20.8% are agnostic, it effects their data because it effects their hypothesis. There is a clear agenda in the evolution curriculum and it is to discredit ID as a legit alternative because these atheist scientists refuse to be scientific and absorb all the information available.

SCIENCE:
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Since science isn't the study of the supernatural, being an atheist or agnostic isn't going to influence results.

Many religious people are able to set aside their personal beliefs or dogma and be good scientists. And then we have the clowns at the Discovery Institute....

555 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:08:25pm

re: #250 KalvinB

"The IDer's want everyone to be focusing on the islamofascists so that they can, while your back is proverbially turned, assult the constitution."

Why do you think Charles has created a popular website focused on Islamofascists?

It's focused on opposing idiotarians, be they socialist leftists, Al Qaedan Islamofascists, Serb and Turkish revisionists (concerning Bosnia and Armenia, respectively), Paulbots, Vlaams Belang and other stealth fascist groups, Obamamessiahists, or Disco Institute stealth assaulters of our constitution and ther education of our youth.

556 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:08:38pm

re: #521 Dan G.

You are ignoring the definition of science. Should masturbation, fornication, cunnilingus, and fellatio be discussed in science class since it might be asked about when covering sexual reproduction? No. Children do not know what is appropriate for the given subject matter, so their questions should not dictate the direction that the course takes. A disciplined teacher should address the question with the express purpose of telling the child when and where such questions are appropriate, and that they are not appropriate in science class.


Straw man on the sexuality stuff.

Do you not also wonder about what existed before the Big Bang?
I do. Lot's of people do. Not just kids.
In any case, it's the type of question that will very natually occur in a science class and touching on the possibility of a creator makes a lot of sense there. If you disagree, that's fine, we can agree to disagree.

Goes to show all these recent LGF threads aren't about ID, stealth creationism, and so forth. Really, they are about being against the mere mention of God in science class. No matter what.

557 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:08:43pm

re: #463 Occasional Reader

I can't believe none of you are enthusiastic about They Live. How can you turn this down?

Because I don't have cable and right now I am hating you.

/

558 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:08:47pm

re: #504 ArcherB

plan the whole thing out?

Excuse me, but I was mere asking you for a general description of the body of facts. And if we're going to have a SCIENTIFIC discussion, I certainly hope that you'd be open to some sort of logical order.

You WERE talking about scientific discussion, weren't you -- that which you're now trying to beg off from.

And since you raised the point, precisely what topic/s am I trying to ban? You imply that I'm trying to ban certain topics. Okay. Name them.

Before you answer, it's only fair to inform you that I'm old enough to remember very clearly when the so-called Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax. I've seen evolutionary theory evolve. I do not consider it as cast in concrete. Far from it. I relish discoveries of new facts.

559 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:08:58pm

re: #549 ArcherB

No- you answer my repeated question to you first.

560 theparson  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:09:00pm

re: #550 jaunte

No we didn't make it. In fact we stayed around The Woodlands but, it was a good day. We just didn't feel we had time to get there and do anything before we had to be back for meetings.

561 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:09:39pm

re: #551 Mars Needs Neocons

Follow that up with Hell Comes to Frogtown and then you have the ultimate viewing night. Just suspend all logic.

Dammit, why do I have to go to work tomorrow?!

562 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:10:12pm

re: #560 theparson

Well, you did manage to miss 2 1/2 hours of nasty freeway driving, so you probably came out on the up side!

563 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:10:56pm

Well, I'm sad that there were no takers on the Planet Unicorn link. It's an oldie, maybe, but a goodie.

Anyone for militant atheist sea otters?

564 theparson  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:11:27pm

re: #562 jaunte

Well, you did manage to miss 2 1/2 hours of nasty freeway driving, so you probably came out on the up side!

No doubt. That was pretty much our thinking. But, I did appreciate your input.

565 Wendya  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:11:30pm

Amy is a YEC?

Damn.

566 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:12:01pm

re: #561 Occasional Reader

Dammit, why do I have to go to work tomorrow?!

LOL

The 80's and early 90's had the ultimate B and Z movies, didn't they.

567 paint-right  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:12:14pm

re: #455 reine.de.tout

re: #452 Thanos

And I agree with both of you on this, too. Religious topics, whether "there is a God", or whether it's "there is no God", should be kept out of the classroom. Period.

reminds me of when earnest little students - debating the existence of Santa Claus - turn to me, the big teacher /adult/'expert' in the classroom to settle the matter, and I, the teacher in the classroom, do not choose to be the one to settle the matter.
I don't promote the discussion nor do I prohibit it. When asked , I duck by offering more things to ponder....well...chimneys are small, Santa is pretty chubby, some people don't have chimneys, yet the cookies are gone, etc etc ......they usually take up the ball again and toss it around some more.
But that is parental territory - not mine.

Conversely when asked a direct question about whether or not I believe in God, ( happens very rarely) I feel I can say can say "yes" without being accused of proselytising. Beyond that I do not go.

I am against prayer in school and teaching Id or creationism in public schools, because I do not want to let islam or wicca or any other belief system in the door, damanding equal time. A firm "NO " is better than all the possibilities that "yes" would produce.

But I pray in school, on the way to and from school, and for all the kids and teachers in school - just not out loud.

568 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:12:24pm

re: #564 theparson

Galveston is worth a visit sometime, but a more leisurely one if you can manage it.

569 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:12:40pm

re: #563 Throbert McGee

Well, I'm sad that there were no takers on the Planet Unicorn link. It's an oldie, maybe, but a goodie.

Anyone for militant atheist sea otters?

You're late, I brought up otter evolution much earlier on this thread.

570 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:12:49pm

re: #556 BuddyG

Straw man on the sexuality stuff.

Do you not also wonder about what existed before the Big Bang?
I do. Lot's of people do. Not just kids.

Ok, and I gave you a possible explanation - "The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event."

Now, let's discuss it.

Walter in Golden, Co.

571 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:13:25pm

re: #556 BuddyG

That is not a straw man. Your premise was that creationism should be addressed since the question might come up. Should other issues that are not scientific in nature also be addressed just because the come up? No, they should not. I used a parallel situation to demonstrate that students' questions shouldn't dictate the science curriculum.

Sure I'm curious about it, but substituting an arbitrary answer just isn't fulfilling, actually, it would numb my curiosity to do so.

572 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:14:00pm

Just name one jurisdiction banning it. Come on- it's so prevalent, you should be able to name one.

573 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:14:16pm

re: #558 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Excuse me, but I was mere asking you for a general description of the body of facts. And if we're going to have a SCIENTIFIC discussion, I certainly hope that you'd be open to some sort of logical order. You WERE talking about scientific discussion, weren't you -- that which you're now trying to beg off from.

So, are you saying that because I can't come up with a list of topics for a discussion, that's why there shouldn't be any discussion? Hell, I don't know the first thing about ramjets, does that mean that NASA shouldn't be discussing them.

Maybe you misunderstood me. All I want is for science teachers and classes to be free to discuss the merits of anything...ANYTHING AT ALL, be it Global Warming, SETI, String Theory, and Yes, even Evolution and the creation of the Universe.

You imply that I'm trying to ban certain topics. Okay. Name them.

It appears to me that you are trying to ban a discussion/debate on evolution. If that's not the case, please correct me as that is the only bitch I have here.

574 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:14:18pm

re: #563 Throbert McGee

Well, I'm sad that there were no takers on the Planet Unicorn link. It's an oldie, maybe, but a goodie.

Anyone for militant atheist sea otters?

Love the Planet Unicorn,but I catch'em on Red Eye..

575 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:14:37pm

re: #257 KalvinB

[Link: geology.about.com...]

The method relies on satisfying some important assumptions:

1. The potassium and argon must stay put in the mineral over geologic time. This is the hardest one to satisfy

Sal: and specimens that cannot be reasonably tested are excluded from this particular test.

Then there are the other three:

2. We can measure everything accurately. Advanced instruments, rigorous procedures and the use of standard minerals ensure this.

3. We know the precise natural mix of potassium and argon isotopes. Decades of basic research has given us this data.

4. We can correct for any argon from the air that gets into the mineral. This requires an extra step.

[Link: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...]

Potassium-Argon dating has the advantage that the argon does not react chemically, so any found inside a rock is very likely the result of radioactive decay of potassium.

----

But not certainly. It's assumed.

I know; the Argon fairy goes around with a supersharp diamond-tipped syringe full of argon and injects it into rocks that it knows are gonna be tested, just to mess with people!

576 theatheistjew  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:14:51pm

re: #565 Wendya

Amy is a YEC?

Damn.

I'm not sure, but I do think she is blatantly dishonest. She has had her posts refuted over and over, yet repeats the same nonsense.
She is smart enough to know the answers given make sense, but she just turns the page and rambles on with the next page of nonsense.
Her blog is full of YECs though. It is a sad sad place when she blogs about science.

577 FinnAgain  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:15:14pm

re: #271 joecitizen

Enough of this talk. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be angry at the IDiots or hungry or fiending. This is terribly confusing.

/

578 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:17:11pm
re: #424 Naso Tang
re: #312 stantheman

I note the steady dropoff in visitors to Little Green Footballs since this anti-ID crusade began. I guess it's more important than the upcoming election. Sad how we sometimes are our worst enemies....

Are you suggesting that this site should be first and foremost a matter of fundamentalist Christians against the hordes of Islam?

What's wrong with rationality against irrationality?

Uh, the former in the former have most of the latter in the latter?

}:)     [If you catch my drift ... ]

579 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:17:32pm

I'm outta here, before Throbert starts expounding on the homoerotic undertones of the militant atheist otter scene.

Good night.

580 jorline  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:17:40pm

re: #517 Occasional Reader

And what am I? Chopped liver? How much cooler can you get than, "PUT... ON... THE GLASSES! [WALLOP]"

Fight seen now...bubblegum seen just completed.

581 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:18:16pm

re: #572 Sharmuta

Just name one jurisdiction banning it. Come on- it's so prevalent, you should be able to name one.

As far as I know, it's not banned anywhere, but we are discussing the following:

Whatever one may think about the possible merits of introducing the specious weaknesses of evolutionary biology into science classes, even if only to tear them down by demonstrating that they do not stand up to experimental evidence, the big problem is that the people taking decisions on these matters seem completely ignorant about science.

That's from the article we are discussing here. It sure sounds to me like unless you have a PHD, you shouldn't be debating the merits of evolution, "even if only to tear them down".

Now, that's where I get that the discussion could be banned. Now you answer my question... Do you think it should be?

582 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:18:24pm

re: #580 jorline

Fight seen now...bubblegum seen just completed.


I seen that scene...

583 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:18:33pm

re: #579 Occasional Reader

I'm outta here, before Throbert starts expounding on the homoerotic undertones of the militant atheist otter scene.

Good night.


Larry King was discussing that tonight on his show.

Walter in Golden, Co.

584 Dan G.  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:18:44pm

Nite all.

585 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:19:10pm

re: #570 Walter L. Newton


re: #540 Walter L. Newton

Sage, I'm not on the "there isn't a creator and I know better" bandwagon. I'm just talking about whether a creator concept should be included in a science class.

Thanks for reinforcing my point that these recent LGF threads aren't really about ID, stealth creationism. They're about being against the mere mention of God in science class. No matter what.

586 jorline  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:19:17pm

re: #582 joecitizen

I seen that scene...

LOL..it's late...thanks for the correction.

587 BuddyG  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:19:32pm

re: #584 Dan G.


nite

588 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:20:27pm

re: #526 Amy Proctor

From Amy Proctor's blog, re Jindal signing the bill:

"Anti-religion zealots are non-too happy at losing their grip in Louisiana’s public schools."

Ma'am, why not just state up front that you're a pro-religion zealot. Also, I respectfully suggest that you state that you are adamantly opposed to MY Christian beliefs, which include acceptance of an evolutionary mechanism as one of God's tools for creation.

I'm glad to know that I'm in such high favor with you. You're very accepting of all God's children. You must be a kind and generous person to those who disagree with you. You are the epitome of Grace in your everyday life.

589 Wendya  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:20:54pm

re: #576 theatheistjew

It is a sad sad place when she blogs about science.


I'll take a pass on the blog. I try not to delve too deeply into the minds of anti-science zealots. They've usually got persecution complexes and a whole lot of other stuff going on.

590 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:21:09pm

re: #585 BuddyG

re: #540 Walter L. Newton

Thanks for reinforcing my point that these recent LGF threads aren't really about ID, stealth creationism. They're about being against the mere mention of God in science class. No matter what.

Or even discussing any weaknesses that may or may not be present in the theory as it currently stands.

591 FinnAgain  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:21:22pm

re: #517 Occasional Reader

I must confess ignorance.
Then again, I must also confess that this thread moves a heck of a lot faster than I can read and generate my own responses.

592 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:22:12pm

re: #588 pre-Boomer Marine brat

From Amy Proctor's blog, re Jindal signing the bill:


Ma'am, why not just state up front that you're a pro-religion zealot. Also, I respectfully suggest that you state that you are adamantly opposed to MY Christian beliefs, which include acceptance of an evolutionary mechanism as one of God's tools for creation.

I'm glad to know that I'm in such high favor with you. You're very accepting of all God's children. You must be a kind and generous person to those who disagree with you. You are the epitome of Grace in your everyday life.


or she could just be a dull wanker with her head up her ass..I'm just sayin'...

593 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:22:32pm

Just went to Amy's blog, she links to Harun Yahya, the Sharia Creationist in her sidebar. Sorry Parson, my vote's with stupid.

594 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:22:41pm

re: #591 FinnAgain

I must confess ignorance.
Then again, I must also confess that this thread moves a heck of a lot faster than I can read and generate my own responses.

Damn, I'm double threading, needing to go to bed, and I'm not getting responses quick enough. Threads are too slow for me right now.

595 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:23:01pm

re: #585 BuddyG

re: #540 Walter L. Newton


Thanks for reinforcing my point that these recent LGF threads aren't really about ID, stealth creationism. They're about being against the mere mention of God in science class. No matter what.

Boy, if you are going to use me as your final proof, then you have certainly lost all ability for critical thinking.

Walter in golden, Co.

596 Wendya  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:23:11pm

re: #585 BuddyG

They're about being against the mere mention of God in science class. No matter what.

Should we be discussing science in comparative religion classes, English lit, Civics?

Why would you want to discuss God in science class unless it were in an attempt to undermine the field of science which, by the way, doesn't have jack shit to do with God?

597 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:23:35pm

re: #268 KalvinB

"What's more, you think you are better than the "scientists" whom you obviously despise."

"scientists" in quotes I have no respect for. Scientists who don't try to build proofs on assumptions I respect.

Sal: Or scientists who don't cause you cognitive dissonance by fiurnishing solid empirical evidence for contentions that peeve you.

It's not a proof if one of your premises is an assumption. "scientists" don't understand that (or want to pretend their assumptions are insignificant) and whine when you point out their assumption is flawed.

Sal: and what are these ungrounded or flawed assumptions you keep bleating about? You have yet to furnish a single one that has withstood the scrutiny of critical perusal.

What scientific marvel has Evolution gotten us? Is my computer running on Evolution? Did Evolution get us to the moon?

Sal: Practical applications of evolutionary theory have helped us greatly in medicine, particularly the design of vaccinations and the deep genetic understanding of viruses, and helped us to genetically modify crops to be hardier, more pest resistent, and more productive in wider ranges of soil, so we could better feed the world. I could continue with others, but, after these two, what's the point?

598 unixrab  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:24:29pm

re: #288 buzzsawmonkey

...over a great length of time.

......in one literal day, from clay... /nexxxt

599 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:24:31pm

re: #585 BuddyG

re: #540 Walter L. Newton

Thanks for reinforcing my point that these recent LGF threads aren't really about ID, stealth creationism. They're about being against the mere mention of God in science class. No matter what.

ID is about the insertion of a version of Christianity into science classes.

There have been numerous links and other information provided that make this crystal clear.

I will teach my child my faith, my religion, in my home, in church and in the religion classes she takes.

It is wrong, in my opinion, for a public school to insert somebody else's version and vision of Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, etc into any classroom. That is not the job of a public school teacher, who may or may not have any theological training at all, or who very well may not have any religious belief at all. Teaching my child religion and faith is my job.

600 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:24:53pm
re: #436 Dan G.
re: #431 Salamantis

Reunite Gondwanaland!

Rotating title nomination.

}:)     [Or bumpersticker ... ]

601 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:25:47pm

re: #581 ArcherB

I think you have comprehension issues if that's what you think the author was saying. I don't think that's the point at all. I see it as akin to asking a barber what you should do about your cardiovascular disease. I think that's the point.

With that- later Lizards!

602 transient  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:25:54pm

Fossils, geology, radioactive dating, blah blah.
Let's crank it up a notch.

Evolution is the only scientific explanation for why human and chimp DNA are 98% similar; why human, chimp, and gorilla DNA are more similar than human vs. dolphin DNA, why human and dolphin DNA are more similar than human vs. avian DNA, etc.

Sure, an omnipotent God could have set it up that way in a supernatural act of creation, but if he used a supernatural act of creation, why bother to show nested homology? ID/creationism doesn't answer the question.

If God made it look that way as a "test of faith," then God is a liar. Not my kind of God (should I choose to accept One.)

Which is the better parent, the one who micromanages his child's life until he (the parent) dies, or the one who prepares his children to be independent and thrive on their own? By (imperfect) analogy--IMO God is more impressive if he set up the whole mechanism to run by itself. The ID folk love the watchmaker analogy. A perfect watchmaker could make the thing to run infinitely, without tinkering with it at all.

It is possible to believe in God and evolution--this is NOT synonymous with ID. ID is a politico-religious doctrine masquerading as science; it is NOT the same as theistic evolution.

Regardless, God (or Vishnu, or the FSM) as creator (by whatever mechanism) is not a testable hypothesis and therefore has no place in the science classroom. Period.

603 Naso Tang  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:25:57pm

re: #549 ArcherB

First, if you have an issue with something I've said in a previous thread, respond there. Moving along.

I did that in posts 331, 340, 370 and 421. Now, answer the question I've asked you so many times:
Should science classes be free to discuss the merits, pro and con of evolution? Yes or No.

No they should not; in schools.

The reason is simple. Children are to be taught what is known, understood and provable, not asked to debate what they have no information to debate with. In particular they should not be given what are easily proven to be outright lies, falsehood and ignorance and then asked to decide what is real. If you do that you teach them nothing.

In college, feel free to take a course in ID, Astrology, Faith Healing, Therapeutic Touch, Dowsing or whatever suites your fancy, if you can afford it and think it will help your future employment, but in school that would be abuse.

604 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:26:04pm

re: #272 ArcherB

The proper venue for that discussion is not science class, but philosophy of science class, which is taught at the college level, not the high school level.

605 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:26:04pm

re: #597 Salamantis

Allow me to repeat that: "Practical applications of evolutionary theory have helped us greatly in medicine, particularly the design of vaccinations and the deep genetic understanding of viruses, and helped us to genetically modify crops to be hardier, more pest resistent, and more productive in wider ranges of soil, so we could better feed the world."
--Salamantis

WWJD?

606 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:26:14pm

re: #573 ArcherB

there shouldn't be any discussion

YOU are the one who's declining to have a discussion. I opened the door wide. YOU are the one who's backing off, and claiming that I'm saying "there shouldn't be any discussion".

You are trying to play victim.

You want a discussion? A scientific discussion? Then get scientific with us. There are some scientists here. We can have a great discussion.

607 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:26:23pm

re: #512 FinnAgain

re: #129 ArcherB

First of all, if you believe in God, you believe in ID.

Wrong.

So wait... You believe in God, but don't think that God created the Universe? You think they were two totally unrelated events? Then... uh... what's the point of a God if things happen that are beyond His control? Not really a God then is he?

Now wait... God created the Universe on accident. Did He sneeze or something. Was the Big Bang really just a divine fart?

608 DesertSage  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:26:44pm

re: #547 theatheistjew

The Origins of Life Made Easy

It is wilfully ignorant creationists like you Amy, that is responsible for the many people we see leaving the church.
You beat your chest and come across as a know it all, but you are peddling nonsense that has been refuted over and over again.

Thank you. You gave me a chance to show more lurkers this great video on why God was not needed when life was first created.

Did it ever occur to you that God was not needed because he had already created the universe and all of the elements therein?
Some people legitimately believe that God purposely placed all of those elements on this planet for the sole purpose of creating life.

You can't disprove that theory, no scientist can disprove that theory....no one can disprove that theory. So, basically this entire argument is pointless.

609 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:26:57pm

re: #598 unixrab

......in one literal day, from clay... /nexxxt

Is this guy for real, or some kind of moby?

610 theatheistjew  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:26:58pm

re: #589 Wendya

I'll take a pass on the blog. I try not to delve too deeply into the minds of anti-science zealots. They've usually got persecution complexes and a whole lot of other stuff going on.


I went there last year one time, and I can't remember what happened, but this is the first time I've been back since.
I do remember that most of her regulars are reality denying YECs though, and it probably frustrated me to the point of perceived vulgarity:)

My blog is a much cooler place to be:)

611 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:27:17pm

re: #599 reine.de.tout

ID is about the insertion of a version of Christianity into science classes.

There have been numerous links and other information provided that make this crystal clear.

I will teach my child my faith, my religion, in my home, in church and in the religion classes she takes.

It is wrong, in my opinion, for a public school to insert somebody else's version and vision of Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, etc into any classroom. That is not the job of a public school teacher, who may or may not have any theological training at all, or who very well may not have any religious belief at all. Teaching my child religion and faith is my job.


Agreed. The ID people want the government to stay out of their spiritual realm only until it benefits their beliefs, and then they are hell-bent on introducing spiritual concepts into the public sphere.

Walter in Golden, Co.

612 buddyg  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:28:08pm

re: #596 Wendya

Should we be discussing science in comparative religion classes, English lit, Civics?

Why would you want to discuss God in science class unless it were in an attempt to undermine the field of science which, by the way, doesn't have jack shit to do with God?

You reinforce my point as well.
Perhaps that will make Walter feel better.
Nite everyone.

613 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:28:11pm

Iron fist rule invoked.
/Fog

614 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:28:15pm

re: #609 Mars Needs Neocons

Is this guy for real, or some kind of moby?

He didn't yawn this time? He's been yawning through several threads over the past couple of days . . .

615 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:29:50pm

re: #277 KalvinB

"Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years"

Good for it. Carbon dating is good for about that time frame as well but it falls apart after about 10,000 years. How do we know that K-Ar doesn't fall apart after a certain time frame due to contamination?

"Isn't it convenient how you, yourself, assume the existence of those assumptions."

[Link: geology.about.com...]

I guess the guy on About.com is a liar then.

Sal: First you were contending that it didn't work for shorter time frames, but only for those over 100,000 years, and when that was conclusively refuted, you did a complete 180 and claim that it doesn't work in the longer time frames that you previously claimed were the only ones it worked within. Flip flop much?

616 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:30:26pm

re: #524 Kreuzueber Halbmond

Teach the science of evolution in science class, but leave the secularism atheism at home.

Fixed.

617 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:30:52pm

re: #615 Salamantis

Sal: First you were contending that it didn't work for shorter time frames, but only for those over 100,000 years, and when that was conclusively refuted, you did a complete 180 and claim that it doesn't work in the longer time frames that you previously claimed were the only ones it worked within. Flip flop much?

Have you figured out yet what method he uses to date the rocks in his head?

618 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:30:54pm

re: #607 ArcherB

So wait... You believe in God, but don't think that God created the Universe? You think they were two totally unrelated events? Then... uh... what's the point of a God if things happen that are beyond His control? Not really a God then is he?

Now wait... God created the Universe on accident. Did He sneeze or something. Was the Big Bang really just a divine fart?

ArcherB -- you chose to ignore my #172 -- why?

Let's have that discussion, or do you not have the cohones?

619 theatheistjew  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:32:34pm

re: #608 DesertSage

Did it ever occur to you that God was not needed because he had already created the universe and all of the elements therein?
Some people legitimately believe that God purposely placed all of those elements on this planet for the sole purpose of creating life.

You can't disprove that theory, no scientist can disprove that theory....no one can disprove that theory. So, basically this entire argument is pointless.

Most atheists were indoctrinated with the other alternative. That God poofed everything into existence for a purpose only known to him, and if you are lucky enough, you will die and find out why.

Yes, God could have put all those elements on the planet, and I can't disprove it, but there is absolutely no evidence that a God was ever needed or ever existed.
So I guess I could start believing your hypothesis, just like I could start believing that there is a Leprechaun who orbits Pluto with a weather machine.

620 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:32:38pm

re: #613 Killgore Trout

Iron fist rule invoked.
/Fog

It's pretty damned foggy in here, too!

621 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:33:03pm

re: #614 reine.de.tout

He didn't yawn this time? He's been yawning through several threads over the past couple of days . . .

Fucking moby.

622 lostlakehiker  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:33:41pm

re: #494 Dan G.

And just where is this entropy accumulating? Read the second law, verbatim. All it says is that some energy that was input into an engine (i.e. energy transformer) is transformed into a state that that particular engine cannot use. Ignoring the fact that the second law is also entirely premised upon analyis of a control volume leads to the reification of entropy, as opposed to understanding that one engine's entropy is another's fuel.

This completely misunderstands entropy. Entropy is the extent to which a particular deck of something or other is shuffled. Crystals aren't shuffled. Gases are. Entropy accumulates in the system at large, meaning, that as an originally sorted deck is shuffled, it tends to fall into a more disorganized state. No engine can extract useful work unless it's in a system whose entropy is not yet maxed out.

As to life and entropy, the whole business about entropy increasing applies to closed systems.

Before: sun has lots of hydrogen, little helium. Plant is small, sitting in disorganized dirt.

After: sun has less hydrogen, more helium. Plant is bigger, with organized structure. But the sun is big, and the earth small. Overall entropy has increased.

623 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:33:57pm

re: #606 pre-Boomer Marine brat

YOU are the one who's declining to have a discussion. I opened the door wide. YOU are the one who's backing off, and claiming that I'm saying "there shouldn't be any discussion".

You are trying to play victim.

You want a discussion? A scientific discussion? Then get scientific with us. There are some scientists here. We can have a great discussion.

I'm not a scientist, sorry. I believe in evolution, so even if I had PHD in Darwinetics, I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help as I'd only agree with you. But that's not my point. I'm not trying to say that evolution didn't happen. I believe it did. But, like anything else, dissent should not be censored.

I just believe that nothing should be banned from discussion. Whether or not if I'm capable of taking part is irrelevant. But when you start saying This or That may not be discussed, you start to enter the whole book-burning ideology. NO topics should be off the table, whether I'm sitting at it or not.

Now as far as me playing the victim... it's not me that I'm worried about. It's anyone who dares to question evolution that seems to be the subject of ridicule. Go back and read my discussion with Sharmuta. He could not bring himself to say "It's OK to discuss the pros and cons of evolution in science class". That makes me wonder how many other people here that the whole discussion should be taboo and not mentioned in scientific circles.

I'm not talking about religion here. Just challenging a premise in the theory of evolution. Should it be banned? No one here is willing to answer that question for me.

624 FinnAgain  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:34:16pm

re: #607 ArcherB

Folks have already told you that they can believe in God, and even Creation, but not ID. The two are not mandatory and defining faith for other people is poor form.

And, simply to make you aware, it's perfectly possible to believe in a God that isn't a Creator God and not feel an iota less awe, or to conflate that faith with science.

625 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:34:24pm

re: #614 reine.de.tout

He didn't yawn this time? He's been yawning through several threads over the past couple of days . . .

Not you of course, him.

Look at the evidence. Feigned exaggerated boredom with our discussions. Hit and shit comments. Complete arrogance in his statements.

Moby.

626 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:34:49pm

re: #287 ArcherB

This is not history, Spanish or German....

And yes, we debated the causes of the Civil War in History. While some said it was slavery, others mentioned several other reasons, like a state's right to foreign trade.

But let me ask you this, Do you allow debate on man-made global warming in Science class? Or do you only show Al Gore's film and teach it as fact, allowing no other viewpoints? There are some people that think that man-made GW is fact and shouldn't be debated. Do you agree?

Sal: There is a difference. Gorebal warming may be bad science, but it is science, which means that it can be proven wrong (as Lomberg, among many others, has been making a career out of doing). ID is not science, but religion. It is not empirically testable., and thus it doesn't belong in science class.

Every time you bring this up, I will answer you so, if this thread should run to 12000 posts. Trying to bombard us with quantity just shows that you have to resort to this because you lack quality.

627 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:35:16pm

re: #613 Killgore Trout

Iron fist rule invoked.
/Fog


Gee Killgore, I clicked on your link, and my EI7 shut down. Really. That was strange.

Walter in Golden, Co.

628 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:36:41pm

re: #625 Mars Needs Neocons

Not you of course, him.

Look at the evidence. Feigned exaggerated boredom with our discussions. Hit and shit comments. Complete arrogance in his statements.

Moby.

I knew you didn't mean me - I would think he would have better and more productive things to do with his time.

629 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:38:10pm

re: #624 FinnAgain

Folks have already told you that they can believe in God, and even Creation, but not ID. The two are not mandatory and defining faith for other people is poor form.

And, simply to make you aware, it's perfectly possible to believe in a God that isn't a Creator God and not feel an iota less awe, or to conflate that faith with science.

Uh, OK then. I guess I stand corrected. I don't see the point in believing in a God that just kinda... well does whatever it is he does, but has nothing to do with you. Why bother.

To each their own I guess.

630 Thanos  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:38:20pm

Time for me to get some sleeps. Thinking about a Catholic who's willing to believe a sharia young earth creationist over the Pope who supports evolution is giving me a headache. Does she think the Pope's a heretic or something?

631 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:38:52pm

re: #628 reine.de.tout

I knew you didn't mean me - I would think he would have better and more productive things to do with his time.

Since when have Trolls or Mobys ever used their time productively?

632 Macker  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:40:08pm

re: #309 Sharmuta

I'm waiting for the eugenics angle.

You asked for it.

633 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:41:10pm

re: #556 BuddyG

Please provide your definition of a "strawman argument".

634 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:41:45pm

re: #311 BuddyG

How about including the concept of a creator be during science class?

If not, then this really isn't about “intelligent design” pseudo-science.
It's about excluding any creator hypothesis.

You can discuss the creation, but not touch upon the creator ?

Evolutionary theory is science. It is empirically testable. Creationism is religion, not science. It is not empirically testable. Only the first one belongs in public high school science class.

Simple enough for you? Were the words too big, or the sentences too complex?

635 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:42:20pm

What "Weaknesses" of Evolution?

"One might argue that evolutionary theory is incomplete, which is true, but this is a strength, not a weakness, because it spurs research and inquiry. Nature has many questions and mysteries that science continues to answer, but our current lack of some particular answer or explanation is not the same thing as an alleged weakness. It appears that scientific theories will never be complete, yet scientific theories have been extraordinarily successful in providing us with accurate and reliable knowledge that allows a modern, technological civilization to exist and continue. Scientific theories are strong and do not contain any weaknesses to "analyze, review, and critique." Furthermore, the intent of those who support rule 3A is clear, since the rule is only applied to the scientific theory of evolution, not to the rest of science, all of which is theoretical and should--if the rule was actually followed--be subject to the same critical scrutiny. But in practice, only evolution gets that focus by SBOE members, so it's pretty obvious what is going on."


[Link: www.texscience.org...]

636 kalvinb  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:43:10pm

------------------
Dalrymple argues strongly:

The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten, the 40Ar formed by the decay of 40K escapes from the liquid.1


However, this dogmatic statement is inconsistent with even Dalrymple's own work 25 years earlier on 26 historic, subaerial lava flows, 20% of which he found had non-zero concentrations of 40Ar* (or excess argon) in violation of this key assumption of the K-Ar dating method.2 The historically dated flows and their "ages" were:

Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.6±0.16 Ma; 1.41±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.25±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.35±0.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.11±0.03 Ma
Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 0.27±0.09 Ma; 0.25±0.15 Ma

Far from being rare, there are numerous reported examples of excess 40Ar* in recent or young volcanic rocks producing excessively old K-Ar "ages":3

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


"First you were contending that it didn't work for shorter time frames, but only for those over 100,000 years, and when that was conclusively refuted, you did a complete 180 and claim that it doesn't work in the longer time frames that you previously claimed were the only ones it worked within. Flip flop much?"

According to every Scientific source I've seen when figuring out the equations and assumptions, it's only good for 100,000 years or more. Less than that and there's not a measurable amount of Ar. I'm not sure why it suddenly worked for sub 2000. Maybe they were able to get a large enough sample.

Although you could be lying to me. So who knows.

It's obvious that any claim of prestine samples is a lie as was proven by the researches own work when developing K-Ar dating. Nothing I've found is new.

Pretty sad that despite the facts people still buy into these dating methods without questioning them.

637 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:46:17pm

re: #313 ArcherB

OK, then maybe I'm misunderstanding it then. I see comments like #253 that imply that discussion the merits of a theory, specifically evolution is somehow bringing religion into the classroom. Now, I don't know how many times I have to say it, but here, I'll bold it this time:
RELIGION HAS NO PLACE BEING TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

So, we agree right? Do you need me to say it again. Anyone want to tell me how I can make it bigger?

OK, with that said, do you think it is OK for a teacher to institute a class discussion on the merits of the theory of evolution? No God, no religion, no Bible. Just an otherwise open discussion on the scientific basis for the theory of evolution. Yes or No.

No ID Theory. No Disco Institute camel's nose under the tent. No Trojan Horse 'supplemental materials' from them or their surrogates or thralls. And with the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence for the theory, and the complete and utter lack of scientific evidence against the theory, prominently mentioned.

638 DesertSage  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:46:37pm

re: #619 theatheistjew

Most atheists were indoctrinated with the other alternative. That God poofed everything into existence for a purpose only known to him, and if you are lucky enough, you will die and find out why.

Yes, God could have put all those elements on the planet, and I can't disprove it, but there is absolutely no evidence that a God was ever needed or ever existed.
So I guess I could start believing your hypothesis, just like I could start believing that there is a Leprechaun who orbits Pluto with a weather machine.

See, this is what I don't get.
I have never said on this blog whether I believe in God or not. In fact, I have said many times that I'm kind of agnostic in that respect. What I don't understand is the ridicule by the more outspoken atheists here. Why the analogy of God with a "Leprechaun who orbits Pluto with a weather machine"? Was that really necessary? Why the condescension of people of faith who honestly and legitimately believe that God created the universe?

I know there are some people of faith here who condescend to the atheists also, but it's far more prevalent, rabid and vicious from the atheists towards the faithful.

I just don't get it. I understand being appalled and angered by the ID people. But why the anger and the mean spiritedness toward simple people of faith who honestly believe that God created the universe?

639 swamprat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:47:03pm

re: #623 ArcherB

Not buying it.

640 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:47:14pm

re: #623 ArcherB

More assumption, you sexist pig. I'm a girl, or did the avatar throw you?

641 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:47:20pm

re: #623 ArcherB

"It's OK to discuss the pros and cons of evolution in science class"

Yes, you're danged RIGHT it's okay to discuss them. I remember discussing them my sophomore and senior years of high school. The Piltdown Man hoax had been exposed just a few years before. The subject was very alive at that time.

I say great, discuss the scientific alternatives to the current understanding of evolution. Sharmuta would agree.

We both would insist that the discussion (IN science class, as you specify) be grounded in science. That is the sticking point. The Discovery Institute is on record as wishing to avoid just such a condition of debate.

So do not say that Sharmuta or I are trying to stifle debate of evolution in scientific terms in science classes.

Neither say that we wish to stifle presentation of ID, creationism, or anything else ... in non-scientific terms outside of science classes.

We are more than happy to permit either and both.

Have I made myself perfectly clear.

Also, have you bothered to read my #172? You say you believe in evolution. Prove it.

642 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:48:51pm

re: #623 ArcherB

Just challenging a premise in the theory of evolution. Should it be banned? No one here is willing to answer that question for me.

Gee- maybe it's because no one is suggesting scientific debate with scientific reasoning should be banned......

643 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:49:36pm

re: #640 Sharmuta

The DI playbook's term "weaknesses" here is morphing into "pros and cons."

644 gman  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:49:51pm

re: #636 kalvinb

Dude, who are you talking to?

645 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:50:09pm

re: #641 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I say great, discuss the scientific alternatives to the current understanding of evolution. Sharmuta would agree.

And I do!

646 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:51:38pm

re: #626 Salamantis

Sal: There is a difference. Gorebal warming may be bad science, but it is science, which means that it can be proven wrong (as Lomberg, among many others, has been making a career out of doing). ID is not science, but religion. It is not empirically testable., and thus it doesn't belong in science class.

Every time you bring this up, I will answer you so, if this thread should run to 12000 posts. Trying to bombard us with quantity just shows that you have to resort to this because you lack quality.

Actually, I thought we agreed with the following:

I'm not against the following statement in Biology class:

That evolution has happened and continues to happen is an incontrovertible scientific fact; the basic mechanism by means of which evolution proceeds is largely understood, but some details remain unclear, and there remains lively scientific debate concerning these details.

Evolutionary theory does not in any manner assert, deny, depend upon, or otherwise address the question of the existence or nonexistence of any deity; such matters remain outside the purview of science and within the realm of religion, since experimental evidence cannot be produced for or against such assertions, nor can they produce empirically testable consequences, and they thus remain both scientifically unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

All I'm looking for here is for someone to say that it discussing the merits of evolutionary theory should or should not be banned. Sharmuta wouldn't say either way. I guess he didn't know enough to have an opinion.

647 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:52:56pm

re: #645 Sharmuta

And I do!

SHEESH, Sharm, why th' hell am I here, still at this? I've got to get up in 6 hours!

648 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:53:28pm

re: #646 ArcherB

Read my #641!

649 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:53:44pm

re: #646 ArcherB

Don't put words in my mouth- it's unbecoming. Did Jesus teach you that?

And again- QUIT ASSUMING! I'm a girl, or did the avatar throw you?

650 transient  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:54:34pm

Went off on a tangent. Back to genetics. (Tangents are much easier.)

Genetic research offers strong support to evolutionary theory. Over the ages, whole segments of genetic material have been inserted into the human (and other) genome, usually from retroviruses (HIV is a recent example of a retrovirus).

In fact, only about 2% of human DNA actually codes for proteins. A lot of it is "junk." [If there was a supernatural Creation Event, or Special Creation, why so much junk DNA?] The DNA that codes for genes is very highly conserved (again with nested homology: human genes are most similar to chimp genes; both are less similar to elephant genes; mammalian genes are more similar to each other than to bird or reptile or plant genes, etc.) The "junk" DNA is free to mutate without harmful effects.

Thanks to the Human Genome Project and recent advances in DNA sequencing, scientists can sequence DNA rapidly and directly compare the DNA sequences of different organisms. These comparisons also support evolutionary theory.

Retroviruses can insert viral DNA into the genome. It can also cause duplication of native genomic DNA; these duplications are almost always nonfunctional, because they are incomplete, or defective, or do not contain important regulatory sequences. However, there are multiple examples where the same duplication exists in (for example) humans, chimps, and gorillas, but not other primates or animals. Similarly, one can look at the sequences and identify the mutations that have occurred in these pseudogenes. Because the genes are nonfunctional, mutations are neutral. Mutations in these pseudogenes also tend to show nested homology: chimps and humans share more mutations than either do with gorillas. Very old pseudogenes can be identified where we share many mutations with other primates, fewer with other mammals, and even fewer with, say, insects.

All of this is understandable in light of modern evolutionary theory. There is no other scientific theory that explains the genetic evidence.

651 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:54:59pm

re: #647 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Hey- I only came back because the pimp couldn't rustle up a customer. ;)

652 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:55:53pm

re: #598 unixrab

I have no problem with you buying that line of snake-oil wholesale, but where we're gonna lock horns is when you try to turn around and sell it retail to other people's children, especially in a public venue.

653 transient  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:56:00pm

Now I understand why no one likes to discuss genetic evidence. It takes a lot of work to understand it and/or explain it. And creationists are unlikely to be swayed. But the genetic evidence is fascinating, and people should be aware of it.

654 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:56:28pm

re: #649 Sharmuta

A GIRL?!
Gasp.
I thought you were the same as me, a hermaphrodite lizard from another planet.

655 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:57:09pm

re: #653 transient

I've been doing a little bit of reading on it, and it is most fascinating. I look forward to reading more, but my reading list is long, and it will be awhile.

656 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:57:24pm
re: #493 Walter L. Newton
re: #478 BuddyG

Point is that science & spirituality can co-exist.
They certainly did in George Lemaitre's mind.

And I see little green men, so it's TRUE. Why don't you offer some real input to this topic, instead of the circular reasoning you are fostering on us?

Walter in Golden, Co.

It's either that he's unable to do so, or he is deceitful and purposely avoiding the issues, probaby out of fear of failure.

}:)     [That's what I'm getting from his performance, anyhow ... ]

657 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:58:10pm

re: #654 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I really thought the avatar would clear up that misconception about me.

658 srmoss  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:58:28pm

Interesting that those decrying the idea of schools discussing the strengths and weaknesses of evolution are the same ones who complain against the PC nature of public educational.

The only thing that these discussions prove is that there is a strong corollary between origin of life and the meaning of life.

659 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:59:16pm
660 Wendya  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:59:26pm

re: #638 DesertSage


I know there are some people of faith here who condescend to the atheists also, but it's far more prevalent, rabid and vicious from the atheists towards the faithful.

So, you feel your beliefs are under attack when you encounter someone who doesn't share your faith and isn't afraid to express it?

Just say "whatever" and move on.

661 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:59:33pm

"Weaknesses!" Drink!

662 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:59:51pm

re: #657 Sharmuta

Right now I need a laugh. Thanks!

663 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 9:59:56pm

re: #658 srmoss

So we combat leftist indoctrination with Christian fundamentalist indoctrination? That's the solution?

664 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:00:30pm

re: #345 BuddyG

So, it's not really about ID. It's about God.

Even if kids ask about what might have created our Universe,
you folks don't want any talk, any hypothesis, of a creator.

High school science teachers should tell their students to ask such questions of their parents or clergy. They most certainly shouldn't be in the business of trying to answer such questions themselves, any more than a country parson should lecture on allele theory with regard to mendelian genetics and the propagation of dominant and recessive traits.

665 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:02:37pm

re: #637 Salamantis

No ID Theory. No Disco Institute camel's nose under the tent. No Trojan Horse 'supplemental materials' from them or their surrogates or thralls. And with the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence for the theory, and the complete and utter lack of scientific evidence against the theory, prominently mentioned.

OK, No ID Theory. No Disco Institute camel's nose under the tent. I don't know how you are going to stop "Trojan Horse 'supplemental materials' from them or their surrogates or thralls", but I say it would be better to educate the teacher of these and provide scientific counter arguments. And Finally, if there is so much "overwhelming mass of scientific evidence for the theory" then there shouldn't be any problem.

Look, I'm not here to shoot down evolution, but I don't think that banning any scientific topic from a science class is a good idea. If a student wants to discuss what he read on the Disco site, then let him. Let the teacher tell him what is right and wrong about his material and educate him with the facts. If you ban the discussion outright, you are leaving the students to their own means and not providing them any counterpoints.

The problem I see here is that so many are doing the exact same thing I see the LLL's doing. Vouchers were a program that takes money from rich schools and gives it poor inner city kids so they can go to the same schools the rich white kids go to. Liberals were against the idea because it was Bush's plan. The have opposed every Bush plan for no other reason that it is Bush's plan.
Here is a Disco plan. Even though it is what we really want, everyone is saying to ban it for no other reason than it is a Disco plan and they have some hidden agenda. True or not, it's a discussion and it should remain free. Now I'm against the "mandatory" part of the plan, but so many here want discussion banned... why? Because it's what they want? Sorry, but that's a stupid reason.

666 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:04:24pm
667 DesertSage  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:05:25pm

re: #660 Wendya

So, you feel your beliefs are under attack when you encounter someone who doesn't share your faith and isn't afraid to express it?

Just say "whatever" and move on.

Excuse me, but when did I ever state what my beliefs are? Are you reading my mind now?

I just don't see that equating someones belief in God with belief in "Little green men" or Leprechauns" is very helpful. All it does is divide people.

Try again.

668 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:05:26pm

re: #665 ArcherB

Now I'm against the "mandatory" part of the plan, but so many here want discussion banned... why? Because it's what they want? Sorry, but that's a stupid reason.

I haven't seen anyone who wants discussion banned - what I see are people who want discussions to take place

in the proper forum.

Faith, religious belief - in home, in church, in religion classes, and maybe philosophy courses, if they are taught at high school level, or discussions in history classes about the history of places and the religions that contributed to that history.

But these discussions do not belong in science classes.

669 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:05:56pm
670 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:06:17pm

re: #666 Sharmuta

Morton's Demon:
[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

671 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:06:55pm

re: #665 ArcherB

You keep using the word "banning". I keep asking for a jurisdiction or law that's banned anything. You keep pointing me to the author linked above, and that's not good enough. Bring me something more concrete, or change your talking points. It's gotten old, mainly because it's just not true.

672 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:07:20pm

re: #657 Sharmuta

I really thought the avatar would clear up that misconception about me.

pictures and/or videos might help..heh

673 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:07:47pm

re: #513 Walter L. Newton

Then it would be all right with you if teachers discussed alternate sexual lifestyles in biology class if a student queried the teacher about that?

Walter in Golden, Co.

Man, I wish I could have updinged you five times for this.

}:)     [Let me just chortle here on the sidelines ... ]

674 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:08:39pm

re: #670 jaunte

Maxwell's demon was shown to fail by Szilard who showed that the demon needed to use light (and expend energy) to determine a fast molecule from a slow one.

Szilard is an anagram for Lizards.

675 transient  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:08:42pm

re: #655 Sharmuta

I recommend Relics of Eden by Daniel Fairbanks.
Written for public/lay audience but with a lot of depth.

676 Wendya  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:08:53pm

re: #665 ArcherB

Look, I'm not here to shoot down evolution, but I don't think that banning any scientific topic from a science class is a good idea.

The issue is the discussion of a topic that is NOT
science in a science class. Should science teachers waste time discussing verb conjugation? If ID comes up, the teacher ought to counsel the student to discuss it with his Minister, Priest Rabi, whatever.

677 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:09:42pm

re: #675 transient

Thanks! I will read it.

678 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:10:47pm

Good night all, as usual, interesting and informative (even though I still don't understand anything about the dating of rocks).

679 Wendya  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:11:00pm

re: #667 DesertSage

Excuse me, but when did I ever state what my beliefs are? Are you reading my mind now?

I just don't see that equating someones belief in God with belief in "Little green men" or Leprechauns" is very helpful. All it does is divide people.

Try again.


Well, you seemed to be so completely offended, I just took a wild guess. Generally, when I see the words "rabid and vicious" in conjunction with "atheist" it's pretty damned clear what's going on.

And BTW, I'm not an atheist so this isn't a matter of me being in their cheering section.

680 gman  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:11:08pm

re: #658 srmoss

Interesting that those decrying the idea of schools discussing the strengths and weaknesses of evolution are the same ones who complain against the PC nature of public educational.

The only thing that these discussions prove is that there is a strong corollary between origin of life and the meaning of life.

Sorry, but I don't see the irony. Multiculturalists believe that we need to value all cultures and use cultural filters before we rush to judge anyone. ID advocates want students to use "cultural" filters (culture in this sense meaning the set of shared values of a religious community) to judge the merits of evolutionary theory.

681 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:11:10pm

re: #667 DesertSage

Excuse me, but when did I ever state what my beliefs are? Are you reading my mind now?

I just don't see that equating someones belief in God with belief in "Little green men" or Leprechauns" is very helpful. All it does is divide people.

Try again.


Sage,ya know I love ya brother but..equating a god or gods with 'little green men' and leprechauns is appropriate in that you can't prove the existence of any of them..I'm just sayin'...

682 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:11:28pm

re: #365 BuddyG

Then approach it from a scientifc point of view.
We have a Universe. What might have created it?
And consider the possibilities.

Kids, in science class, naturally wonder and ask about such things.

If you're against even that, then you're just biased.

That would not be taught in biology class, but in cosmology class, which is, once again, a college level course, that includes the theories of such people as Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan, and a whole lot of physicists.

Check it out:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

I have taken such a class, from a quite reknowned cosmologist, Robert Kleinmann.

Of course, what you most probably would prefer is a theology class, but that is taught in seminary school.

683 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:11:58pm

re: #626 Salamantis

Sal: There is a difference. Gorebal warming may be bad science, but it is science, which means that it can be proven wrong (as Lomberg, among many others, has been making a career out of doing). ID is not science, but religion. It is not empirically testable., and thus it doesn't belong in science class.

I agree that Gorebal Warming is bad science, but the bad scientists that came up with the idea don't think so and they have attained a higher level of education than I ever will. They feel that anyone who is against their idea is an idiot. "How could they think such a thing. It's been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Just look at the data!" But, like you said, it is science, which means it can be proven wrong.

Is the theory of evolution science? If not, then it shouldn't be taught in science class. If so, then it can be proven wrong.

Now, here is where our disagreement comes from. You think that I want ID taught in schools. That is not true. I just want open discussion of evolutionary theory. No ID, no God, no Bible or Quran or Torah or Dianetics. Just raw scientific theory and data.

So please, stop telling me that ID should not be taught in schools. We agree on that point. I'm not arguing for that.

684 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:12:17pm

re: #607 ArcherB

The problem here is that you are confusing faith (God as a creator) with a political agenda (the Discovery Institute's attempts to force Intelligent Design into the science classes of public schools).

If that confusion is the result of not reading the material linked here by fellow Lizards, than it is a confusion born of ignorance (ignorance being a lack of knowledge on a certain subject, and not a general insult).

If, however, you have read or are aware of the material linked (the Wedge Document being one piece) and are making this confusion in spite of the evidence, then you are engaging in deliberate, dishonest obfuscation.

Which is it?

685 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:12:26pm

re: #676 Wendya

The issue is the discussion of a topic that is NOT science in a science class.

I get that, you get that. Most of the people reading this thread gets that. But, I think with this poster, you might need this. Just a guess.

686 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:12:52pm

re: #520 Amy Proctor

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, ALIENS did it and conservatives are joining forces with those bozos. Talk about the enemy of knowledge! You guys are aligning yourselves with the likes of Dennis Kucinick and his flying saucer theories.

You know, if friends have good drugs, friends share ...

}:p     [Heck, just exhale in this direction, will ya?]

687 jaunte  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:14:30pm

re: #683 ArcherB

What do you mean by "open discussion of evolutionary theory?"

688 hillbilly geek  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:14:56pm

re: #650 transient

In fact, only about 2% of human DNA actually codes for proteins. A lot of it is "junk." [If there was a supernatural Creation Event, or Special Creation, why so much junk DNA?] The DNA that codes for genes is very highly conserved (again with nested homology: human genes are most similar to chimp genes; both are less similar to elephant genes; mammalian genes are more similar to each other than to bird or reptile or plant genes, etc.) The "junk" DNA is free to mutate without harmful effects.

there was this little thing called the Fall. Ever hear of it? Fascinating: led to snakes talking, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

689 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:15:05pm

re: #676 Wendya

The issue is the discussion of a topic that is NOT
science in a science class. Should science teachers waste time discussing verb conjugation? If ID comes up, the teacher ought to counsel the student to discuss it with his Minister, Priest Rabi, whatever.

Please go a bit higher and read some more. I'm not for ID being taught in science class. I just don't want banning the discussion of the pros and cons of evolution.

Then again, you prove my point. If I were in a science class and said, "Wait, I don't understand this. Are you sure this is correct? What about this?" You would assume that I was an ID-Young-Earther and tell me that religious discussion has no place in science class.

690 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:16:33pm

re: #370 ArcherB

To me this sounds like, Because idiots suggest A:, we must not do A, even if doing so will prove they are idiots.

But high school kids would be less likely to be able to divine this idiocy, and would therefore be at a greater risk of being taken in by it. And it would most certainly contradict the religious worldviews of the parents of many of the kids, and they have the Constitutional right not to have their children indoctrinated without their permission and against their will into faiths that are foreign to their tradition and experience in public high school science class.

691 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:19:12pm
692 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:19:38pm

re: #375 BuddyG

No specific relgion's dogma should ever be pushed in a public school classroom.
However, the concept of a creator is generic enough to be included. Especially in the context of scientific discussions such as what existed before the Big Bang.

That ain't science; that's an untestable religious assertion. BTW: if you knew anything about modern physics, you wouldn't even USE the phrase 'before the Big Bang', as it is akin to using the phrase 'outside the Universe'.

693 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:19:59pm

re: #689 ArcherB

You make a lot of assumptions and are too quick with the strawmen tactics. Do you really know what Wendya would say or think or are you projecting your assumptions?

694 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:20:22pm

re: #625 Mars Needs Neocons

I am thinking troll is the more appropriate title. Unless, of course, it is making these posts in a concerted effort to make people of faith look, then moby it is.

695 DesertSage  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:20:33pm

re: #681 joecitizen

Sage,ya know I love ya brother but..equating a god or gods with 'little green men' and leprechauns is appropriate in that you can't prove the existence of any of them..I'm just sayin'...

Joe, you know I love ya like a brother too!

And you have a point, you can't literally prove that God exists any more than you could a leprechaun or a little green man.

My point is that a lot of really good people believe in God and they do it honestly and legitimately.
I could care less if one believes in God or is an atheist, as long as they're a good person. But to tell someone of faith that their God is nothing more than a 'little green man' or a 'leprechaun', to me is kind of condescending and is not needed in this debate.

696 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:23:06pm

re: #694 Slumbering Behemoth

I am thinking troll is the more appropriate title. Unless, of course, it is making these posts in a concerted effort to make people of faith look, then moby it is.

I think it is intentionally trying to portray people of faith as close-minded, and arrogant about their views. At least that's the way the evidence leans.

So, Moby.

If it was a troll it would go into detail how we are all wrong and Kos created the universe.

697 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:23:54pm

Maybe buzzsawmonkey could back me up here, but if science were to "ban" scientific dissent, I think it would cease to be science. It would throw a wrench in the scientific method.

698 transient  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:24:53pm

re: #665 ArcherB

I say it would be better to educate the teacher of these and provide scientific counter arguments. And Finally, if there is so much "overwhelming mass of scientific evidence for the theory" then there shouldn't be any problem.

I don't think that banning any scientific topic from a science class is a good idea. If a student wants to discuss what he read on the Disco site, then let him. Let the teacher tell him what is right and wrong about his material and educate him with the facts. If you ban the discussion outright, you are leaving the students to their own means and not providing them any counterpoints.

ID is not a scientific theory, period. Therefore it deserves no more time in biology class than the discussion of the four humors from medieval medicine (a preponderance of black bile gives you melancholy, etc.) There are currently no competing scientific theories to evolution.

There are certainly arguments about the details of evolutionary theory. These intradisciplinary disputes are above the high school level. You might state that there is some disagreement about whether slow gradual change vs. punctuated equilibrium is more likely, but I don't think this is what the ID people have in mind when they say "Teach the Controversy!"

High school teachers should certainly be prepared to counter the arguments brought by those who are taking their teaching points off the DI website (etc.) but it would not be appropriate for one student to monopolize class time by raising all of their personal objections, any more than it would be appropriate for a student to take up class time by repeatedly insisting on speaking French in German class (to use buzzsawmonkey's analogy). Private tutorials perhaps could be arranged for those who need extra attention.

699 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:25:07pm

re: #386 BuddyG

Considering the concept of a creator is a hypothesis.
Science is based upon hypothesis.

No, Science is based upon testable propositions, The presence or absence of a creator is not a testable proposition, hence it is not science, but religion. It can be believed in, but not known. It remains an article of faith.

You may have a thousand different ways to contend the same fallacy, but I only need one way to refute it.

700 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:26:08pm

re: #52 kalvinb

"in voting to make evidence against evolution part of the curriculum"

Shouldn't that already be part of the curriculum?

Teaching the supernatural in a science classroom is wrong but so is teaching Evolution as unquestionable fact.

That would avoid silly articles such as

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

which claims

1. Absolutely closed systems do not exist even under ideal laboratory conditions

and then right after

2. Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are

Or maybe that was due to the lack of a logic course.

When lizards are "evolving" in 30 years and bacteria are "evolving" in 20, maybe it's time to question the validity and accuracy of our dating methods.

The only one I learned about in HS was carbon dating which I only later found out was so terrible that it had to be calibrated by tree rings in order to give accurate results.

Talking about all the "assumptions" that evolution relies on and their significance without the BS like Talk Origins provided would be useful knowledge as well.

If you want to teach "millions of years" in a science classroom then you should provide the tools to the students to do the calculations themselves and see how they can be affected by trace amounts of certain elements.

Invincible Ignorance. That says it all.

701 DesertSage  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:28:05pm

re: #699 Salamantis

No, Science is based upon testable propositions, The presence or absence of a creator is not a testable proposition, hence it is not science, but religion. It can be believed in, but not known. It remains an article of faith.

That was very respectful, Sal.
I'm feeling good about this discussion again.

702 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:29:00pm

re: #695 DesertSage

Joe, you know I love ya like a brother too!

And you have a point, you can't literally prove that God exists any more than you could a leprechaun or a little green man.

My point is that a lot of really good people believe in God and they do it honestly and legitimately.
I could care less if one believes in God or is an atheist, as long as they're a good person. But to tell someone of faith that their God is nothing more than a 'little green man' or a 'leprechaun', to me is kind of condescending and is not needed in this debate.

cool..point taken...

703 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:29:09pm

re: #638 DesertSage

I saw it as a simple illustration of how neither could be tested by science, and nothing more.

704 yehoshua  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:30:59pm

re: #659 buzzsawmonkey

The problem arises when God is not mentioned during a child's entire day at school. A distorted view of reality is developed. Children grow up thinking they can get along just fine without God. Anything that brings God into a child's life, such as the Biblical account of Creation, should be encouraged.
Why this reverence for science? At any moment, God could turn everything upside down, split the seas, make the sun stand still. There is nothing scientific about love, yet we know that it exists.

705 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:31:01pm

re: #392 ArcherB

Actually, we just spent the past 6-weeks in our Sunday School class going over the creation of universe. Oh, and the very first thing the "teacher" said (he has a PHD and is a science professor at UT) is that the Earth is Billions of years old and the life as we know it was created through evolution. He explained the math behind the forces of nature (not that anyone got it) and went into a long discussion about the immensity of the Universe. He explained how evolution works and how we all came to be via natural selection. And all that was so incredibly unlikely that there is no way it could have all happened by chance.

How's that for God Class? Anyway, that's why it pisses me off when people say that ID'ers are all new-earthers that run around saying "God did it, that's how". There are very bright, educated scientific minds out there who believe in ID, yet do not dispute any of the science to get there. Anyway, to kill the discussion is to silence these guys and not get to hear what they have to say.

Sal: They can say all the science they want to in public school science class, but they should leave the religious pronouncements (such as ID) for private or public religion classes. Science class should not be concerned with what untestable religious propositions an individual teacher personally believes, and high school science class students should not be forcefed such things as a captive audience.

706 transient  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:31:32pm

re: #688 hillbilly geek
Read the rest of my post. And that is a tiny fraction of the evidence available. "The Fall" certainly does not explain it, unless a malignant God has been stuffing our DNA with cr*p.

If you want to go on believing that "The Fall" explains it, fine. But please don't pretend that "The Fall" is science, and should be taught as such. Or, go get a biology degree and try to prove it.

We're not holding our breath.

707 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:31:48pm

re: #665 ArcherB

I don't think that banning any scientific topic from a science class is a good idea.

(emphasis is mine)

Precisely. And I agree 100%.

However, you appear to think that anything which anyone labels as "science" qualifies as science. Am I right or wrong?

Do you even grasp the difference between science and non-science? I think not. Furthermore, I now believe that you do not want to grasp it.

And I now do not think you believe in "evolution". I think you're just saying that as a defense mechanism.

You made a slip of the tongue up in #665. The emphasis is mine:

Here is a Disco plan. Even though it is what we really want, everyone is saying to ban it for no other reason than it is a Disco plan

You just exposed your own agenda.

Thank you, and good night.

708 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:34:02pm

re: #704 yehoshua

And madrassas do nothing BUT teach God. If that's the type of education you want for your child, then send then to a private school or teach them at home.

709 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:34:08pm

Why do I get the feeling that ArcherB wants no part of what he's been asking for -- frank affirmation by one of us that discussion of the pro and cons of evolution is all right?

Why do I get the feeling that he wants no part of a discussion of my #172, after he (it now seems) paid lip service to a belief in evolution?

Notice the tail-end of my #707. He's got an agenda, and he slipped up big-time.

-----------
Sharm, good night dear lady.
Buzzsaw, Behemoth, Sage, Jaunte, everyone else I missed, good night.

/dammit, WHY did I drink that cup of coffee after 5PM?!

710 DesertSage  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:34:43pm

re: #703 Slumbering Behemoth

That's it SB, time for you to take a walk!
Just don't look down.

711 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:35:06pm

re: #397 BuddyG

There are many theories inlcuded in science class.
I'm not advocating prosletyzing for converts.
Just a simple inclusion that among the possibilites on the origin of our Universe is a creator.
Makes perfect sense since in science class kids often ask question like "what existed before the Big Bang?"

As I said before, the answer to the question 'What was before the Big Bang" is that there is no more a 'before' the Big Bang than there is an 'outside' the Universe.

It's not the business of high school science classes to be teaching religion. And reference to some universe-creating deity or another is a religious proposition. It cannot be tested. It is not science. It does not beling in science class. Period.

712 yehoshua  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:36:24pm

re: #708 Sharmuta

Madrasas teach adherence to a cult of death, nothing Godly in that.

713 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:36:42pm

re: #709 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Good night, Boomer! Good eye, there.

714 gman  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:36:47pm

re: #697 Sharmuta

Maybe buzzsawmonkey could back me up here, but if science were to "ban" scientific dissent, I think it would cease to be science. It would throw a wrench in the scientific method.

Experiments have to be repeatable. Other scientists often conduct the same experiment to further validate the original hypothesis.

Steps to the Scientific Method

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new 7. hypothesis
8. Publish results
9. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

715 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:37:04pm

re: #651 Sharmuta

Um, I've been here the whole time. Is your boss blind or something?
///

716 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:37:15pm

re: #401 ArcherB

Um... well, I guess you could start with the supposed violation of the second law of thermodynamics and move on from there I guess.

Or should we just not speak of such things and teach the kids like the state says we should without question?

Complex biological systems that receive energy from outside (like from the sun) are not constrained by entropy.

717 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:39:05pm

re: #712 yehoshua

I don't disagree on the islam, but the larger point, I think, is valid. Those kids' education is nothing but religious dogma, regardless of what we think about the particular religion. Is that what you really want for America's children? Nothing but religious instruction?

718 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:39:25pm

re: #715 Slumbering Behemoth

LMAO!

719 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:41:26pm

re: #710 DesertSage

That's it SB, time for you to take a walk!
Just don't look down.

oh man..that was sumpin' else!

720 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:41:35pm

re: #658 srmoss

Interesting that those decrying the idea of schools discussing the strengths and weaknesses of evolution are the same ones who complain against the PC nature of public educational.

That is not the issue. Either you haven't been paying attention, or you are engaging in deliberate obfuscation.

721 hazzyday  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:41:55pm

re: #312 stantheman

I note the steady dropoff in visitors to Little Green Footballs since this anti-ID crusade began. I guess it's more important than the upcoming election. Sad how we sometimes are our worst enemies....

You wish. Lol. Saying something like this just seems fickle and bitter. And a lack of something..... I can't quite put a touch on it. You're offended. Get over it. this puts you in the company of demorats calling talk radio pretending to be republicans. The edge of trollishness.

722 FinnAgain  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:41:58pm

re: #704 yehoshua

The problem arises when God is not mentioned during a child's entire day at school. A distorted view of reality is developed. Children grow up thinking they can get along just fine without God.

1. they can.
2.they can.
3. really, they can.
4. that's why we have parents, families and churches. If you require the government to spread your faith, your faith must be pretty damn weak.


Anything that brings God into a child's life, such as the Biblical account of Creation, should be encouraged.

Right. We'll get right on the mandatory inclusion of burqas for the sake of 'modesty',or maybe we should teach children that they have to follow the Torah and that the Christian Bible isn't doesn't contain any actual revelation and, wait, what's that? Anything that spreads your view of God to other people's children, without their parents' consent is a good thing?

The devil, as they say, is in the details.


Why this reverence for science?

I like toasters, alarm clocks, medicine, internal combustion engines, the internet, airplanes, fiber optics, atomic power, etc, etc, etc.
Science works.

So it isn't so much 'reverence' as pragmatics. Just like I don't 'revere' engineers, but I'd sure rather have any skyscraper I'm in be designed by an engineer rather than a preacher.


At any moment, God could turn everything upside down, split the seas, make the sun stand still.

Ayieeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
(pauses)
Ayieeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


There is nothing scientific about love, yet we know that it exists.

There's nothing scientific about a communal mammal's propensity for pair bonding in the service of raising its young? Or in testing which synapses light up and which chemicals cause which emotional reactions? Nothing scientific? Nothing?

723 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:42:05pm

re: #714 gman

Experiments have to be repeatable. Other scientists often conduct the same experiment to further validate the original hypothesis.

Steps to the Scientific Method

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new 7. hypothesis
8. Publish results
9. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Exactly- and if #9 should find something different, that's automatically opening the doors to debate and discussion, is it not?

724 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:42:32pm

re: #116 KalvinB

"There are multiple methods of dating, as we've posted them many times already. They include krypton, argon, carbon, tree rings, surrounding sediment, ice cores and meteorlogical events that put specific markers in the strata across the world. Scientists using only one method get laughed at by other scientists. Please get a clue."

And how many of those can be applied to the same piece of rock?

How long does it take for 1cm of rock to deposit?

How long does it take for 1cm of ice to deposit?

I'm aware of the multiple methods. I'm also aware that they all require a lot of assumptions.

Say I have a jar full of various types of rocks and I shake it around a bit. How long will it take before they seperate and form layers. Can I then postulate that the rock on top must have been younger than the rock on the bottom of the jar?

I can't believe it. You really are getting dumber with every post you make. You are desperately clinging to DI talking points which have long since been shot down in flames.

One thing I can tell you: if you shake a jar full of rocks, pretty soon you will have a broken jar, and maybe a bloody hand for your troubles. Better you should use a coffee can.

725 hazzyday  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:42:42pm

re: #666 Sharmuta

*sigh*

I wonder who has the most 666 comments on the blob. That might be proof of God at work with a sense of humor.

726 transient  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:43:34pm

re: #704 yehoshua

The problem arises when God is not mentioned during a child's entire day at school. Anything that brings God into a child's life, such as the Biblical account of Creation, should be encouraged.
Why this reverence for science? At any moment, God could turn everything upside down, split the seas, make the sun stand still.

1. Since public schools are government institutions, they cannot "establish a religion." Which God do you want them to learn about? Hashem? Jesus? Allah? Vishnu? Which version of Creation? Judeo-Christian? Hindu? Native American? If you want your kid to hear about God and Creation during the school day, I recommend you send your kids to the religious day school of your choice.

2. It is the responsibility of the parents to educate their children in religion (or not, as they choose). Why would parents want to abdicate teaching their kids ethics? Do you really want to give this responsibility to the schools? To the government? That thought actually scares me. And if you want the schools to teach kids religion, then you'd better be prepared for them to hear equal time for other religions.

3. This is not about reverence for science. It is about whether God is an acceptable explanation for the diversity of life in the context of science class. Since God is not a testable hypothesis, it is therefore not an appropriate subject for science. If you would like your high school to offer an elective on comparative religion, or the history of religion, fine. (But that is not the same as teaching them reverence for the Creator.) If religion is that important to you, your child should be enrolled in either a religious day school or have intensive after school instruction.

727 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:44:48pm

re: #421 ArcherB

First, how many Christians do you know? All of the ones I know do. Maybe you should visit a church once in a while.

Next, yes, you are a bigot. You think that I am too backwoods ignorant to discuss the merits of evolution without saying "God did it, that's wai"

Oh, it's just wrong? care to explain why or should just accept what you say is true on premise alone. Much like evolution.

Oh, I've shown where people, like yourself, say that the discussion should be banned. That is what you asked for. Did you have a point?

Sal: you missed my reply:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I'm not against the following statement in Biology class:

That evolution has happened and continues to happen is an incontrovertible scientific fact; the basic mechanism by means of which evolution proceeds is largely understood, but some details remain unclear, and there remains lively scientific debate concerning these details.

Evolutionary theory does not in any manner assert, deny, depend upon, or otherwise address the question of the existence or nonexistence of any deity; such matters remain outside the purview of science and within the realm of religion, since experimental evidence cannot be produced for or against such assertions, nor can they produce empirically testable consequences, and they thus remain both scientifically unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

728 DesertSage  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:45:01pm

re: #719 joecitizen

oh man..that was sumpin' else!

That cameraman had some balls, huh? Passing those guys on the outside without missing a step.

729 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:45:25pm

re: #710 DesertSage

I jumped out of my regular thread reading schedule to address your post, just 'cuz I think you're cool (even if we disagree on some matters):

I've seen that vid before, and you couldn't pay me enough to go to that restaurant. Put enough beer in me, though, and it's on!

/just bring a well stocked cooler, 'cuz that looks like a long hike

730 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:45:54pm

re: #641 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Also, have you bothered to read my #172? You say you believe in evolution. Prove it.


Well, you had mentioned that you were having trouble with what I said and was having a hard time. I believe you said, "Biting your tongue". I didn't want to push it. OK, honestly, I just missed it.

As for your 172:

I believe most strongly in God, and in God as the Creator, but I absolutely reject ID. I believe that God could easily have sparked a Big Bang, knowing full well that processes would form, that evolution would occur. I refuse sit be meekly while it's implied that because I don't believe in ID, I therefore don't believe in God.

Well, I see God as timeless. God would not be bound by our universe, and time is part of our universe (according to Einstein anyway... I don't pretend to understand it, but accept the premise). So God really could say, "Let there be X.... and there was" That doesn't mean that nothing existed before X because BEFORE is a measure of time. God, remember, is timeless. I guess it would be like writing a novel. If you want to kill a character is chapter eight, you kill that character is chapter eight. Then you go back and set up HOW it all happened in chapters 1-7. ( I don't KNOW if that's what God does, but if if you take time out, I guess that would make since.) Either way, I don't see how a truly all powerful God, timeless could create a Universe without a plan... then again, a plan is an order of operation... and is bound by time.

Now THAT should not be taught in Science class. However, google "Anthropic Principle" and take a look at the math involved with it. I'm not talking about the whole "Universe created for man" thing, but before that, the whole, "What are the odds that stars would form" and "what are the odds they would last long enough to create different elements from hydrogen via fusion (considering the gravity thresholds involved along with the thresholds of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces)" and then multiply them all together for some narrow odds of the universe being just the way it is. THAT, could be taught in science class, provided you don't throw a "God Did It" at the end.

And the Anthropic Principle is big Disco Inst argument, but that doesn't make the science and math wrong, and it's not their argument alone. My point is that data shouldn't be tossed out just because it's on the DI's website.

Also, look up "Nature of the constants" and the "Fine tuned Universe" for reasons why I think that the Universe was "designed". Why? Who knows. Ask your religious leader. But it fits too well to not be. (Again, My $0.02)

731 gman  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:46:17pm

re: #723 Sharmuta

Exactly- and if #9 should find something different, that's automatically opening the doors to debate and discussion, is it not?

Correct, and depending on the significance of the outcome of the experiment, the more the lengthy the "peer review" process and degree to which other scientists verify the results of the experiment.

732 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:46:50pm

re: #428 BuddyG

To be against any mention of even the possibility of a creator, while discussing Universe creation, when kids ask about the origins, reveals a bias.

Yep; a bias in favor of keeping high school science class about science, not religion. I like it.

733 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:50:54pm

re: #698 transient

ID is not a scientific theory, period. Therefore it deserves no more time in biology class than the discussion of the four humors from medieval medicine (a preponderance of black bile gives you melancholy, etc.) There are currently no competing scientific theories to evolution.

OK. So if a students asks about one of these non-existent theories, do you simply not discuss it? Do you refuse to answer the questions posed by the student? Don't get me wrong, if a student asks a religious question, send them to a church, but that's not what I'm talking about (although everyone seems to assume that I am... Maybe I should bold the whole, "I DO NOT WANT RELIGION TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS" again since people can't read).

But if a student brings up with "Watch" argument in class, are you saying that teacher should not answer his question? The watch argument is an ID argument, should it be ignored?

734 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:52:44pm

re: #728 DesertSage

That cameraman had some balls, huh? Passing those guys on the outside without missing a step.


yeah,even with the sissy rope,which I didn't notice at first because it was so breath taking...

735 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:53:58pm

re: #439 BuddyG

If you were a science teacher, and a student asked you
"what was there before the Big Bang?" how would you answer?

We don't know. And leave it at that?
Or discuss the possibilities?

I'd answer: there ain't no such thang as before tha Big Bang, dewde!

Is that in language you can understand?

736 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:54:11pm

re: #733 ArcherB

I think your question has been addressed numerous times. Perhaps it's you who can't read.

737 FinnAgain  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:54:33pm

re: #726 transient

If religion is that important to you, your child should be enrolled in either a religious day school or have intensive after school instruction.

No no, it's all about other people's children.

738 srmoss  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:55:04pm

re: #680 gman

Multiculturalism IS the perfect analogue for evolution. It teaches that since all life came from mutated slime we are no better than the bacteria makes us ill and decomposes us when we die.

739 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:56:11pm

re: #738 srmoss

I think you're confusing your terms. Don't you mean relativism?

740 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:57:29pm

re: #716 Salamantis

Complex biological systems that receive energy from outside (like from the sun) are not constrained by entropy.

Right... and this is the type of thing that could be discussed in Science class. That was my whole point all along, but I couldn't get anyone to say that it was OK to discuss ideas that were counter to evolution, right or wrong. Ms Sharmuta went thought about 500 posts without saying it. Someone else had to answer it for her.

And as to your #727, I got you in my #646.

741 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 10:59:53pm

re: #453 BuddyG

Fixed it for ya.
By the way, check this out.

Yep. Lemaitre's work was inspired by a desire to prove the existence of God; Even though it did provide a scientific advance that led to Big Bang Theory, he filed to prove God's existence.

742 unixrab  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:00:09pm

re: #609 Mars Needs Neocons

Is this guy for real, or some kind of moby?

real deal

743 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:00:21pm

re: #740 ArcherB

You really do have a comprehension problem.

744 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:01:27pm

this might be a 2 bong thread..

745 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:02:41pm

re: #184 KalvinB

"Actually the ocean bottom is sinking, the great lakes bed is rising, and yes, they can prove it."

And can you prove it's been sinking at a constant rate?

One of the biggest assumptions that evolutionists make is that despite all this change from a single cell organism to life today, the earth has always been 1/3 land and the continents have always looks the same.

What if there was no ocean as we know it when the world began?

At one point in time, all the land in the world was concentrated in one giant landmass which has been named Gondwanaland. The remainder of the world was ocean. So the continents have not always looked the same.

For a long period in the Mesozoic, there was a seaway that ran from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean. I can go out in my back yard, stick a shovel in the ground, and dig up some of the Bearpaw Shale that was deposited in that very seaway.

746 unixrab  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:04:54pm

re: #621 Mars Needs Neocons

Fucking moby.

unixrab != moby. unixrab== conservative, anti-islamofascism, anti-thinking, pro-bible, pro-creationism (as I see it) --- etc. etc. and too smart for you. :(

747 FinnAgain  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:05:07pm

re: #738 srmoss

Really? That's what it teaches? Science teaches morality, aesthetics? Are here I thought those were all branches of philosophy. Learn a new thing every day (one hopes).

Your argument is a bit like saying that art teaches us that since all paints are ground up pigments in a medium and all pencil is just graphite, that there's no difference between a Dali and a doodle.

748 FinnAgain  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:07:25pm

re: #746 unixrab

Was there supposed to be a sarc tag there?

749 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:07:56pm

re: #746 unixrab

unixrab != moby. unixrab== conservative, anti-islamofascism, anti-thinking, pro-bible, pro-creationism (as I see it) --- etc. etc. and too smart for you. :(


yeah,you're a real pile of...brains,pal.

750 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:08:03pm

re: #736 Sharmuta

I think your question has been addressed numerous times. Perhaps it's you who can't read.

In response to my #733, (698) said that ID has no place in the science class when I was talking about scientific arguments that may come from DI or any other site. I said to arm teachers with information to refute any claims that may come from these sites. He said that it shouldn't be discussed because he was under the assumption that I had mentioned ID or something.
Now, I agree if the student comes in with a Bible that the questions should not be answered. That's a given. Unfortunately, that's not what I said. Here, maybe you will understand an example:

Let's say a student comes in with a printout explaining the with all the different possible combinations on a DNA strand, if you tried 10 different option for every second the universe has been in existence, there'd be a greater chance of getting hit by lightening 10 times than landing on the sequence that makes man. Should the teacher just put her hands over her ears say, "NANANANNNAAANNNNAANAH!" and not answer the question?

What do you think?

751 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:08:51pm

re: #718 Sharmuta

I am not normally one to tell another how to do their job, but laughing at potential customers does not seem like a sound business model, especially in that market.

///super-sarc

752 unixrab  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:09:26pm

I think the problem people are having here...is that they want to relegate the texts of Christianity (History, Law, Poetry, Gospel, letters, and prophecy) to "religion" whereas the Bible comments (as an authority) on Science, Religion, Philosophy & Prophecy.

Evolutionists claim that God did not Create Man (and woman from his rib) from dust on the 6th day. That is "religion" Nay.. it is Science. ... God's way. Your theory, attacks our faith and Science...hence they are incompatible. ID is "on to something" but it's better just to say, God did it. God through His Son, Jesus Christ ... why? for Their Glory.

That's that.

753 unixrab  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:10:01pm

re: #749 joecitizen

yeah,you're a real pile of...brains,pal.

so be it.

754 gman  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:10:16pm

re: #738 srmoss

Multiculturalism IS the perfect analogue for evolution. It teaches that since all life came from mutated slime we are no better than the bacteria makes us ill and decomposes us when we die.

Evolution is scientific theory. Whether you or I feel threatened by its implications does not matter and will not change what scientists have found through observation and experimentation.

755 FinnAgain  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:11:14pm

re: #750 ArcherB

ID is not science.
It is not testable.
It is not falsifiable.

Since it cannot be falsified, it can only be refuted on an 'instance by instance' basis with specific claims it makes about specific traits. It cannot be debunked totally as it is not science.
Keeping it in the science classroom only serves to let theology get its foot in the door.

756 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:11:38pm

re: #465 BuddyG

The inclusion of the possibility of a creator is certainly relevant to the subject matter.

Religious propositions are not proper subjects of discussion in high school science class.

757 joecitizen  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:11:45pm

re: #752 unixrab

I think the problem people are having here...is that they want to relegate the texts of Christianity (History, Law, Poetry, Gospel, letters, and prophecy) to "religion" whereas the Bible comments (as an authority) on Science, Religion, Philosophy & Prophecy.

Evolutionists claim that God did not Create Man (and woman from his rib) from dust on the 6th day. That is "religion" Nay.. it is Science. ... God's way. Your theory, attacks our faith and Science...hence they are incompatible. ID is "on to something" but it's better just to say, God did it. God through His Son, Jesus Christ ... why? for Their Glory.

That's that.


you are actually borderline nuts it would seem..

758 transient  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:12:03pm

re: #733 ArcherB

The ID talking points like the example you gave can be briefly answered by pointing out that positing the existence of God or any other deity as the "Intelligent Designer" is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore not science, and will not be discussed in this class. Typically the class will have discussed the nature of the scientific method earlier in the year. It might be an appropriate time to point out that science does not discount or seek to disprove the existence of a deity, it is simply outside the scientific method, which deals with the natural (not the supernatural) world. The student might be asked to review the chapter on the scientific method (rather than take up class time to do so).

An enthusiastic teacher might offer private time for the discussion.

As a less "loaded" example, if a student asked about the four humors, a teacher might say something like "it was a medieval theory to explain disease." That's probably all they would say, unless they had a lot of time and the inclination, and it's all that's necessary. If the student is interested in medieval disease theory, they can engage the teacher after class, when the teacher could offer additional readings if s/he knows of any, or suggest the student use the library (or Google).

An actual teacher might be able to provide more input on how they deal with questions that are outside the scope of their class material.

An actual teacher might also be able to provide better input on how one deals with students asserting information that is actually WRONG--as in students that ask questions about the "arguments against evolution." If a student stands up and says "The Battle of Hastings occurred in 1527," they would simply be corrected. Likewise, if the student is asserting information that is simply incorrect, they need to be corrected. However, the teacher cannot allow the class to be hijacked into a total discussion of "evidence against evolution." If the student needs or wants more information, it should be addressed elsewhere, by additional reading by the student.

759 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:13:25pm

re: #741 Salamantis

Yep. Lemaitre's work was inspired by a desire to prove the existence of God; Even though it did provide a scientific advance that led to Big Bang Theory, he filed to prove God's existence.

Hey! That's my link from our last chat!

It was on the history channel tonight, btw.

It's a fine example how ideas that are accepted as fact by the greatest scientific minds of all times just might be wrong. (Not saying evolution is one of them, but take it back before the Earth was formed...)

760 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:13:46pm

re: #216 KalvinB

"we aren't faced with discrete and separate rocks rattling around in a jar; we are faced with solid laters of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary strata, and they don't just up and reverse position "

Except for those areas where the layers are upside down.

You assume the layers were formed at a constant rate. But I can get layers of rocks by shaking a jar. I also have rocks popping up in my backyard that I know were buried a month ago more than 6" because I rototilled them out and put several layers of rockless dirt on top.

You assume those layers weren't formed by the natural process of earth sorting itself out like my backyard does. But it's certainly a possibility.

Where the layers are upside down ("overturned" is the geological term for it), we recognize that fact from a number of "tops" criteria derived from sedimentology. Mud cracks, ripple marks, foreset bedding, load casts, raindrop imprints, and many others.

Go to your local college and sign up for an introductory course in geology; you'll likely get hands-on exposure to some of these, and maybe you'll begin to realize how utterly ridiculous your talking points appear to those with a decent measure of science education. And rocks are downright fascinating in their own right.

761 unixrab  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:14:36pm

re: #757 joecitizen

you are actually borderline nuts it would seem..



1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

762 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:15:02pm

re: #478 BuddyG

Point is that science & spirituality can co-exist.
They certainly did in George Lemaitre's mind.

Yes they did. I up-dinged you because you got that much right, at least. But they shouldn't be co-existing in public high school science class.

763 Ma Sands  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:15:27pm

re: #755 FinnAgain

Funny. If Jesus AIN'T "in the door" as you call it, you're nowhere.....can the One Who made everything, and upholds everything, be taken out of anything.....? :)

764 Salamantis  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:17:57pm

re: #481 BuddyG

No specific religion's deity. Just include the concept of a creator.

It's still disciminatory, as some religions, such as Buddhism, don't contain a creator, and others, such as Hinduism, contain more than one. Plus, you're discriminating against atheists, agnostics, srcularists, and the garden variety irreligious,

765 Josephine  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:18:24pm

re: #483 Sharmuta

The rhetoric is always revealing.

Do an internet search on "dead hand of Darwin" and Dembski.

766 ArcherB  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:19:23pm

re: #755 FinnAgain

ID is not science.
It is not testable.
It is not falsifiable.

Since it cannot be falsified, it can only be refuted on an 'instance by instance' basis with specific claims it makes about specific traits. It cannot be debunked totally as it is not science.
Keeping it in the science classroom only serves to let theology get its foot in the door.

But just to make sure that we got you straight and on the record here. If a student comes in with a question from DI site, the teacher should cover her ears and go "NANANNNAANANAHNAHNAH", right and refuse to tell the student the truth?

Which brings me to my next question. How do you know which questions are genuine and which ones came from the DI site? Or do you just refuse to answer anything at all?

767 unixrab  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:23:19pm

ID is reverse engineering... and we ALL know that doesn't work... how could a computer programmer take code apart the he just KNOWS magically appeared over bilzions of ga-years of chance and survival and actually reveal the initial program.... LUDICROUS! Reverse Engineering is FAITH BASED RELIGION... don't take apart my apparently-evolved Roomba... NAY! /sarc

768 transient  Mon, Jun 30, 2008 11:24:08pm