Another Stealth Creationism Bill Dies, No One Mourns

Science • Views: 2,309

As we noted in early February, Florida Republicans introduced a bill modeled on the one signed into law by Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, intended to sneak creationism into science classes under the disguise of “academic freedom.”

Today there’s good news; the Tampa Tribune reports that this bill is dead: Anti-Evolution Bill Still A Fruitless Exercise.

TALLAHASSEE - A bill aimed at undercutting acceptance of evolution in Florida science classes, which kicked up a fuss but didn’t pass in the Florida Legislature last year, apparently is going nowhere this year.

A Senate version of the bill has yet to receive a committee hearing and has no companion bill in the House. That means, said one proponent of the idea, that the bill has little chance of passage in this frantic session, heavily devoted to cutting and balancing the state budget.

“With no companion in the House, it doesn’t have much likelihood,” said Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla.

Sen. Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville, filed the bill in the Senate in late February. It would require that public schools “teach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution” in science classes.

Last year, Hays filed a similar bill in the House and Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, filed a Senate bill that Hays said had the same goal but different wording. Storms’ bill prohibited discipline or lawsuits against science teachers who taught alternatives to evolution as theories on the origins of species.

Also see
Using ‘Academic Freedom’ to Keep God in the Science Classroom

Jump to bottom

146 comments
1 Basho  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 1:55:28pm

Humiliated and defeated multiple times, I'm sure these bills will stop coming up.

///

2 livefreeor die  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 1:55:39pm

I am always stunned that this movement has so many supporters.

3 Wishing  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 1:57:51pm

RIP

4 Wishing  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 1:58:12pm

re: #2 livefreeor die

I am always stunned that this movement has so many supporters.

And all Republicans.

5 alexknyc  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 1:59:50pm

So much for our two-party system. One party panders to anti-American leftists and UN one-worlders, the other to religious fascism and anti-science types.

Where do the rest of us go for representation?

6 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 1:59:59pm
A Senate version of the bill has yet to receive a committee hearing and has no companion bill in the House. That means, said one proponent of the idea, that the bill has little chance of passage in this frantic session, heavily devoted to cutting and balancing the state budget.

As it should be in this time of economic turmoil.

Last year, Hays filed a similar bill in the House and Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, filed a Senate bill that Hays said had the same goal but different wording. Storms’ bill prohibited discipline or lawsuits against science teachers who taught alternatives to evolution as theories on the origins of species.

Why any elected official thinks they should be legislating protections for people willingly defying the Constitution is beyond me.

7 CapeCoddah  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:00:54pm

Good.

8 Emerald  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:02:07pm

re: #6 Sharmuta

Why any elected official thinks they should be legislating protections for people willingly defying the Constitution is beyond me.

Creationists don't believe in the Constitution any more than they believe anyone is allowed to have a religious belief that differs from their own.

9 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:03:31pm

Illinois Republican Congressman John Shimkus thinks we don't need to worry about climate change, because the book of Genesis says that God will decide when the world is supposed to end.

Youtube Video
10 Wishing  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:08:03pm

re: #9 Charles

Illinois Republican Congressman John Shimkus thinks we don't need to worry about climate change, because the book of Genesis says that God will decide when the world is supposed to end.


The gal behind him just about burst out laughing when he started.

11 albusteve  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:09:04pm

Godfinger....
the man with the climate touch

12 Wishing  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:09:34pm

re: #11 albusteve

Godfinger....
the man with the climate touch

Hey steve, how's things?

13 grahamski  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:11:24pm
Youtube Video
14 Killgore Trout  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:12:25pm

re: #9 Charles

Good news!
/

15 livefreeor die  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:13:22pm

re: #11 albusteve

Godfinger....
the man with the climate touch

Along those lines, here's the latest news update on Earth Hour.

The scariest part of the story are that there is an executive director of Earth Hour. Want to bet he makes a healthy sum? And for what-all you have to do is send out e-mails and get the news to cover it and-ta dah-you have Earth Hour.

By the way, in addition to running the self cleaning feature on my ovens during Earth Hour, I will be doing laundry and running my bread machine. And making toast.

16 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:13:40pm

re: #9 Charles

Wow.

17 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:15:54pm

Well, the barbarians have been beaten back from the schoolhouse gate yet again in my home state. But they'll be back next year, I'm sure, just like they showed up this year and last year.

Like some of the creationist trolls on LGF, the people who relentlessly push this legislation are Energizer Dummies.

18 albusteve  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:23:57pm

re: #12 Wishing

Hey steve, how's things?

good as I can make em!...how about you?re: #15 livefreeor die

Along those lines, here's the latest news update on Earth Hour.

The scariest part of the story are that there is an executive director of Earth Hour. Want to bet he makes a healthy sum? And for what-all you have to do is send out e-mails and get the news to cover it and-ta dah-you have Earth Hour.

By the way, in addition to running the self cleaning feature on my ovens during Earth Hour, I will be doing laundry and running my bread machine. And making toast.

you're in deep dude...I don't pay much attention to that stuff myself

19 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:29:49pm

Heh. I intend to spend "Earth Hour" the same way I spend every hour, supplying electricity to things I need or am using, and keeping the stuff I don't need or am not using turned off. You know, just being conservative with my resources.

/yay me!

20 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:39:26pm

re: #19 Slumbering Behemoth

I was going to do the same thing. Just going to do what I would normally do.

21 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:43:19pm

re: #9 Charles

Illinois Republican Congressman John Shimkus thinks we don't need to worry about climate change, because the book of Genesis says that God will decide when the world is supposed to end.

Youtube Video

There are good scientific arguments against AGW (solar cycles, for instance).

This ain't one of them.

22 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 2:53:11pm

re: #20 Sharmuta

Seriously, wasting resources as a form of protest is just as equally stupid as the "earth hour" thing itself. Makes no sense.

23 Mr Secul  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 3:02:16pm

re: #21 Salamantis

He said that "there is a theological debate that this is a carbon starved planet"

Que?

Did he mean theoretical?

24 FrogMarch  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 3:02:20pm

Keep religion out of science classes.

25 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 3:08:52pm

re: #2 livefreeor die

I am always stunned that this movement has so many supporters.

Ken Miller talks about this in his book, _Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul_. One idea that he briefly discusses is that for some, God and belief in God's Word, aka The Bible, is a unifying force that binds Americans together. In turn, this spiritual unification is considered to be the force behind the very existence of the United States by God's Will. Evolution, therefore, is seen as something that renders this spiritual unity asunder because, if humans are a result of natural laws, God can play no part and everything falls apart from there.

That's what I got from reading Miller's book. It has been a few months since I've picked it up. Others who have read it may want to clarify further.

26 theotherwaldo  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:05:36pm

Sorry.
I'm skeptical about both creationism and evolution. As far as I'm concerned, both are religions and neither should be presented as factual in a classroom.

There are no facts in science, only currently held theories. Almost every "fact" presented by the believers of evolution has valid contradictory evidence. If a fact has contradictory evidence then it is not actually a fact.

This shouldn't be a two-sided argument over whether evolution or creationism is correct. Rather, it should be whether either should be taught in the classroom.

27 Mr Secul  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:22:50pm

re: #26 theotherwaldo

Almost every "fact" presented by the believers of evolution has valid contradictory evidence.

Please give examples.

28 TheHistorian  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:23:54pm

It is really interesting that the THEORY of evolution, and the THEORY of global warming, are treated as absolute fact. While I firmly believe in creation and a creator, I do not find that evolution is incompatible, it just does not explain it all.

If you want to look at another couple of theories that fit with creationism and global warming, you might look at the theory of the "big bang" (which was a derisive term for a theory that was discredited at the time it was introduced) and the theory of population "mongrelization" of the world which notables such as Alexander Graham Bell believed to be true. That fear caused the rise of the "Master Race" prior to WWII and the immoral experiments of WWII which are a lot like embryonic stem cell research today in their disregard for the human being.

Just because you don't want to believe it does not make it true. It is time for all sides of all theories to be explored. Just because you wish to treat people who believe in creation as opposed to evolution as morons does not make it true. When you can explain how the eye evolved, then I will listen. Until then, you are as much of a know-nothing as Al Gore is on global warming.

BTW, Pink, my great-great uncle was Charles Darwin.

29 TheHistorian  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:28:19pm

re: #27 Mr Secul

Why bother giving you any facts. You are certain that evolution is a "fact", just like Al Gore is certain that global warming due to CO2 emissions is a "fact". This bill did NOT say that creationism was to replace evolution, it said that evolution should be "examined from all sides". Again, groupspeak and Anthem by Any Rand or George Orwell's 1984 have hit us; we cannot put laws in to allow alternative viewpoints to be taught?

30 TheHistorian  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:32:03pm

re: #24 FrogMarch

Put some science in the classroom, then is all that people are asking. Teach theories as THEORIES, not as fact. That includes gravity, global warming, evolution, etc. Just because theories are proved to hold in most cases does not make them certainties in all cases. And admit where your theories do not hold up.

31 jaunte  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:35:40pm

re: #26 theotherwaldo

Almost every "fact" presented by the believers of evolution has valid contradictory evidence.

Present some, and let's examine it.

32 Mr Secul  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:39:06pm

re: #29 TheHistorian

Why bother giving you any facts. You are certain that evolution is a "fact", just like Al Gore is certain that global warming due to CO2 emissions is a "fact". This bill did NOT say that creationism was to replace evolution, it said that evolution should be "examined from all sides". Again, groupspeak and Anthem by Any Rand or George Orwell's 1984 have hit us; we cannot put laws in to allow alternative viewpoints to be taught?

So if I understand you correctly: you could give examples but you can't be bothered.

If you can't be bothered to back up what you say then why should anybody be bothered to listen to what you say?

Why should we invest more interest in your argument than you are prepared to put into it?

33 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:46:17pm

re: #29 TheHistorian

Al Gore supports creationism in classrooms.

34 Basho  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:48:12pm

Good thing people like TheHistorian are on the losing side of this. What an embarrassment to the country these bills and their supporters are.

35 [deleted]  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:52:49pm
36 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:53:39pm

re: #29 TheHistorian

Examples were asked for because there are none. You're full of shit.

37 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:54:16pm

re: #35 TheHistorian

There isn't a single shred of empirical evidence that refutes evolution, and that's a fact.

38 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:55:29pm

re: #26 theotherwaldo

Sorry.
I'm skeptical about both creationism and evolution. As far as I'm concerned, both are religions and neither should be presented as factual in a classroom.

There are no facts in science, only currently held theories. Almost every "fact" presented by the believers of evolution has valid contradictory evidence. If a fact has contradictory evidence then it is not actually a fact.

This shouldn't be a two-sided argument over whether evolution or creationism is correct. Rather, it should be whether either should be taught in the classroom.

Umm, ALL the empirical evidence collected over the past 150 years supports evolution, and NONE of the empirical evidence contradicts it. And there is NOT A SINGLE SHRED of empirical evidence that supports creationism, and mountains of it that contradict Genesis Literlist creationism. I TRIPLE DOG DARE you to present one example of credible counterfactual empiricl evidence falsifying evolutionary theory, or one example of credible evidence supporting creationism.

They are not two competing theories; evolution is empirical science, while creationism is religious dogma, and as such does not belong in public high school science class. The bright line dividing empirical science from religious dogma is the presence vs. the absence of empirical evidence; evolution has tsunamis of it; creationism lacks a single drop.

As to the hoary old 'just a theory' canard, the word 'theory' in science means something much stronger than the guess or hunch it connotes in common parlance:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

39 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:58:21pm

I see we have some more sleepers suddenly waking up and posting on an evolution thread.

40 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:58:48pm

re: #35 TheHistorian

And why should I invest argument into someone who has his own biases and is not willing for his theory to be evaluated in an open discussion. As I said, like Al Gore.

If you were really interested, you would go to sites like creationdefense.org, or let's try one from Popular Science [Link: www.popsci.com...] Or answer my question above: how did the eye evolve?

The eye evolved in stages, and all of the stages are still around, from the light-sensitive cells on the skin surface that the flatworm possesses, to their presence in a concavity, to that concavity's enclosure, to the gelling of aqueous liquid into a focusing lens.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

41 TheHistorian  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 4:59:19pm

re: #34 Basho

Glad you like "groupthink". It saves you so much time every day to be on the "right" side.

The issue on not teaching all sides of a theory is the same as the economic theory that is being used to support this abysmal stimulus package. There is no proof it works, there is lots of proof it doesn't, but to slow down and examine the theory is heresy. So, with belief in theories like evolution, we proceed on with Keynesian economics. Full speed ahead! We don't need to teach people to think about theories. The bill is not just about creation; it is about teaching the young to think, which our schools do abysmally.

42 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:00:06pm

re: #30 TheHistorian

Put some science in the classroom, then is all that people are asking. Teach theories as THEORIES, not as fact. That includes gravity, global warming, evolution, etc. Just because theories are proved to hold in most cases does not make them certainties in all cases. And admit where your theories do not hold up.

Please provide a single example of where evolutionary theory DOESN'T hold up.

43 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:00:13pm

re: #35 TheHistorian

If you were really interested in the truth about evolution, you'd read a real science book.

44 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:01:32pm

re: #41 TheHistorian

Glad you like "groupthink". It saves you so much time every day to be on the "right" side.

The issue on not teaching all sides of a theory is the same as the economic theory that is being used to support this abysmal stimulus package. There is no proof it works, there is lots of proof it doesn't, but to slow down and examine the theory is heresy. So, with belief in theories like evolution, we proceed on with Keynesian economics. Full speed ahead! We don't need to teach people to think about theories. The bill is not just about creation; it is about teaching the young to think, which our schools do abysmally.

Please furhish proof - ANY CREDIBLE PROOF - that the theory of evolution doesn't work. Otherwise, you're just groundlessly and impotently,and futilely woofing.

45 jaunte  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:01:45pm

re: #41 TheHistorian

Glad you like "groupthink".

Were you raised in isolation, or were you influenced by others?

46 Basho  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:02:45pm

Nooooo! You accused of me groupthink. I'm melting. MEEELLLLTTTIIINNG!

47 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:03:07pm

re: #41 TheHistorian

Critical thinking in science means we look at the empirical evidence and apply the scientific method. After 150 years of looking at the evidence and applying the scientific method, evolution is the soundest theory in all of science. There is not another theory that has been more tested and more validated than evolution.

NONE.

48 jaunte  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:03:51pm

re: #46 Basho

Nooooo! You accused of me groupthink. I'm melting. MEEELLLLTTTIIINNG!

That's not groupthink, it's wickedwitchery.

49 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:06:26pm

Same old same old.

"Show me the proof of how the eye evolved!"

You give them a link.

They ignore it, or dismiss it.

"Show me how one animal can change into another!"

You give them links to transitional fossils.

They ignore it, or dismiss it.

Lather, rinse, and repeat.

50 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:08:20pm

Links burn us, Precious.

51 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:09:33pm

re: #29 TheHistorian

Why bother giving you any facts. You are certain that evolution is a "fact", just like Al Gore is certain that global warming due to CO2 emissions is a "fact". This bill did NOT say that creationism was to replace evolution, it said that evolution should be "examined from all sides". Again, groupspeak and Anthem by Any Rand or George Orwell's 1984 have hit us; we cannot put laws in to allow alternative viewpoints to be taught?

Here's your idea of 'teaching the controversy' and 'critical evaluation' in the name of 'academic freedom':

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

Imagine that your state legislature has decided to revamp the way that health and medicine are taught in public schools. To do this, they must tackle the "germ theory of disease", the idea that infectious disease is caused by microorganisms such as viruses and bacteria. The legislature, noting that this idea has many vocal opponents, declares that it is "only a theory". Many people, for instance, think that Aids has nothing to do with viruses, but is the byproduct of a dissipated life. Christian Scientists believe that disease results from sin and ignorance, spiritual healers implicate disturbed auras and shamans cite demonic possession.

In light of this "controversy", the legislature sets up a school board that includes not only doctors, but also shamans, faith healers and, for good measure a few "psychic surgeons" who pretend to extract veal cutlets from patients' intact bodies. Taking account of these diverse views, the board recommends that from now on all teaching of modern medicine must be accompanied by a discussion of its weaknesses, including the "evidence" that Aids results from drug use and malnutrition, as well as from impure thoughts and evil spirits. And our failure to understand the complexities of chronic fatigue syndrome might be seen as reflecting its causation by an inscrutable and supernatural designer.

You would rightly be furious if all this happened. After all, the "germ theory" of disease is more than just a theory – it's a fact. Like all scientific theories, it might be wrong, but in this case that chance is roughly zero. That is because the germ theory works. Antibiotic and antiviral drugs really do cure diseases, while spiritual healing does not. Only an idiot, you'd say, would try to tamper with medical education in this way.

What's next? Since there are many who deny the Holocaust, can we expect legislation requiring history classes to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of the idea that Nazis persecuted Jews? Should we teach our children astrology in their psychology classes as an alternative theory of human behaviour? And, given the number of shamans in the world, shouldn't their views be represented in medical schools?

52 jaunte  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:09:44pm

re: #50 Sharmuta

Your facts are only Theories and vice versa, hobbitses.

53 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:10:40pm

re: #52 jaunte

Mean stupid darwinists can keep nasty links, Precious!

54 Basho  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:12:04pm

re: #51 Salamantis

That was wonderful. Favorited for future plagiaristic reposting ;)

55 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:13:49pm

re: #26 theotherwaldo

Sorry.
I'm skeptical about both creationism and evolution. As far as I'm concerned, both are religions and neither should be presented as factual in a classroom.

Wrong. Creationism is religion. Evolution is science. There is a difference.

There are no facts in science, only currently held theories. Almost every "fact" presented by the believers of evolution has valid contradictory evidence.

Then go ahead. Name some of this "valid contradictory evidence" instead of simply asserting that it exists.

56 Mr Secul  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:19:14pm

re: #35 TheHistorian

And why should I invest argument into someone who has his own biases and is not willing for his theory to be evaluated in an open discussion. As I said, like Al Gore.

The theory of evolution is not my theory. I don't own it, I didn't originate it.

But I think that it is the best theory we have to explain how life on earth evolved.

What do I mean when I say that life evolved?

What I mean is that species appear on earth at different times any may species have gone extinct so that there has been no time on earth when every species that has ever lived exists at the same time. There have been different assemblages of species on earth at different times in the history of life.

For starters there is the simple fact that many of the species that were alive in the past are not alive today.

Do we both agree that dinosaurs are not around any more?

There is also the fact that we have never seen human remains in rocks that contain Dinosaur remains.

Do you agree that Humans and Dinosaurs didn't live on earth at the same time?

Or do you think that the Flintstones is a reasonably accurate account of life a few thousand years ago?

If you were really interested, you would go to sites like creationdefense.org, or let's try one from Popular Science [Link: www.popsci.com...] Or answer my question above: how did the eye evolve?

That old canard!

That is too easy. Darwin explained how it could happen in The Origin.

The vertebrate eye can evolve from a single light sensitive cell in a gradual series of changes through intermediate stages. There are living organisms that posses 'eyes' that are representative of each of the necessary intermediate steps.

Is that old Creationist talking point the best that you've got?

57 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:22:23pm

And as far as the Big Bang is concerned, not only do we have the empirical evidence of its background echo radiation to substantiate it, but also we have been able to date the Universe at 13.7 billion years old from an examination of its red shift coefficient.

58 Mr Secul  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:23:18pm

re: #56 Mr Secul

What was I drinking?

What I mean is that species appear on earth at different times any may and many species have gone extinct so that there has been no time on earth when every species that has ever lived exists at the same time.

So that's what the preview button does.

59 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:23:37pm

This is the website recommended by "TheHistorian:"

[Link: creationdefense.org...]

Wow. Featuring this wonderful account of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark:

[Link: creationdefense.org...]

Pure kookery.

60 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:27:20pm

re: #59 Charles

This is the website recommended by "TheHistorian:"

[Link: creationdefense.org...]

Wow. Featuring this wonderful account of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark:

[Link: creationdefense.org...]

Pure kookery.

And that's the sort of nonsensical tripe that the Historian suggests we employ in order to teach our children to think...

Methinks he'd be better off learning to think himself, before he endeavors to suggest how to teach others to do so.

61 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:29:17pm

And curse that Owellian groupthink of 2+2=4! The 'alternative theories' of 3, 5, Pi, and eleventy-twelve should also be taught!

/

62 Basho  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:30:15pm

Now that I got the snark out of me, time for something serious...

There is nothing wrong with "groupthink". It is absolutely vital for society to function at all. Where groupthink causes damage is when a group of people are following an idea that contradicts the evidence. So, in one example, the one who is engaging in the derogatory form of groupthink are the people who think creationism is a viable alternative to evolution.

Here is an actual example of a dangerous form of groupthink that should make you ashamed to have accused me of doing it:
[Link: news.aol.com...]

Hundreds of thousands of fearful Ukrainians have refused vaccines for diseases such as diphtheria, mumps, polio, hepatitis B, tuberculosis, whooping cough and others this year, according to official estimates. Authorities have canceled a U.N.-backed measles and rubella vaccination campaign funded by U.S. philanthropist Ted Turner, and will have to collect and incinerate nearly 9 million unused doses in coming months.
"I never thought I'd see the day where perfectly good vaccines are being destroyed," said Michael Bociurkiw, a spokesman for UNICEF.

Pathetic.

Lastly, to accuse me of going with the flow at this site... well Salamantis and I think jaunte can attest to the fact that I do not. Me and Sal get into some disagreements on some issues and I think I flat-out offended jaunte numerous times...

63 jaunte  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:32:04pm

re: #62 Basho

Not at all, I always agree with you, as far as I can remember...?

64 Basho  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:34:10pm

re: #63 jaunte

Err... of course! My bad!

(Mustn't remind him of that one time...)

65 Mr Secul  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:34:38pm

re: #41 TheHistorian

Glad you like "groupthink". It saves you so much time every day to be on the "right" side.

The issue on not teaching all sides of a theory is the same as the economic theory that is being used to support this abysmal stimulus package. There is no proof it works, there is lots of proof it doesn't, but to slow down and examine the theory is heresy. So, with belief in theories like evolution, we proceed on with Keynesian economics. Full speed ahead! We don't need to teach people to think about theories. The bill is not just about creation; it is about teaching the young to think, which our schools do abysmally.

The problem with using the 'alternative theories' to evolutionary theory is that they are religious beliefs. In case its not clear, I am talking about Creationism and ID.

We could use them as examples of woolly thinking, we could use them as examples of really bad arguments and although this would be a good way to teach critical thinking, I think that religious people would object to state funded science classes attacking their religious beliefs.

So although Creationism is BS and the exposure of ID dishonesty would be a good way to promote critical thinking, I don't know if either subject is really suitable for discussion in a science class.

66 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:34:43pm

re: #61 Salamantis

Everyone knows 2 + 2 = 22!

67 swamprat  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:35:19pm
TheHistorian
registered since: Apr 6, 2008 at 6:15 pm
(Logged in)
No. of comments posted: 11
No. of links posted: 0


theotherwaldo
Karma: -5
Registered since: Jun 25, 2007 at 8:34 am
No. of comments posted: 3
No. of links posted: 0
68 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:39:07pm

re: #67 swamprat

That's why I referred to them as "sleepers."

We've seen this happen over and over in the creationism-related threads.

69 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:40:08pm

And ... this is why I'm seriously considering automatically blocking accounts that haven't been used for several months. There's some kind of funny business going on here.

70 swamprat  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:42:35pm

re: #68 Charles

Not sure you had noticed.

That's why I posted.

71 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:42:36pm

re: #69 Charles

And ... this is why I'm seriously considering automatically blocking accounts that haven't been used for several months. There's some kind of funny business going on here.

I would suggest that you start by checking the downdingers on past evo threads, to see if they've posted comments.

I imagine you could whittle away much of the cognitive deadwood there.

72 swamprat  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 5:43:27pm

And they come in pairs; another cliche.

73 Emerald  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 6:07:01pm

re: #41 TheHistorian

Glad you like "groupthink". It saves you so much time every day to be on the "right" side.

The issue on not teaching all sides of a theory is the same as the economic theory that is being used to support this abysmal stimulus package.


This is bullshit on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.

Just whose side do you propose teaching? If you're so open to schools offering different views, then you should have no problem with Islamic, Wiccan, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist and any of the thousands of other religious viewpoints being taught. The distorted Christian worldview held by creationists isn't even believed by the majority of Christian religions, let alone the rest of the world. You can't teach one religion without allowing all the others to have their beliefs presented as fact. Of course, this raises the issue of when any science is going to be taught in science class.

But why stop with biology? If alternatives to evolution are okay, what about astrology instead of astronomy? What's good for the goose and all that. Creationism also throws out other sciences, so you'll need alchemy instead of chemistry. I'm not exactly sure what superstition you'll have to replace physics with, but I'm sure you have something handy. Divination with innards maybe?

Of course, it's easy to claim that there are flaws in evolution, but actually proving it is another matter, isn't it? It's funny how creationists have no problem lying through their teeth to show how religious they are.

74 Emerald  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 6:11:44pm

re: #59 Charles

Wow. Featuring this wonderful account of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark:


He obviously never watched Jurassic Park. The dinos would have eaten everything else on board. Maybe that explains where the unicorns went...

It also raises an interesting question - just how big of a boat was that damned ark? Forget all the huge, modern animals and the room it would take to hold 40 days worth of food. How much room does it take to hold all the dinos? How much does a T. Rex eat in 40 days? It was a really brave guy who went in to clean out its cage, too.

75 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 6:29:12pm

re: #74 Emerald

It also raises an interesting question - just how big of a boat was that damned ark? Forget all the huge, modern animals and the room it would take to hold 40 days worth of food. How much room does it take to hold all the dinos? How much does a T. Rex eat in 40 days? It was a really brave guy who went in to clean out its cage, too.

No problem -- creationdefense.org is way ahead of you on that one:

The Bible is clear that Noah took at least two of every kind of animal on the ark (Genesis 7:2,3). Thus, since dinosaurs were animals they must have been there. But how could a 100 ton, 90 foot long Argentiniosaurus fit on the ark? Very simply. Noah could have taken a young dinosaur on the ark. They had a picture of this huge dinosaur with its eggs at Fernbank. I asked the paleontologist there how big the eggs were. She said they were less than a foot in diameter. So, even these large dinosaurs were small once and could have easily fit on the ark.

One reason people have a hard time believing this is that they have no idea how large the ark was. God designed the ark with dimensions that made it virtually impossible to capsize. According to Genesis 6:15,16 it was about 438 feet long, 73 feet wide and 44 feet high with three levels inside. That means it was about 1 ½ football fields in length, it had about 100,000 square feet of floor space, it would hold 533 railroad stock cars and it had a volume of 1,396,000 cubic feet.

Thus, the ark was a massive barge large enough to haul its intended cargo. Geologist and biologist John Woodmorappe spent twenty years in intensive research into creation and the Flood and produced the book, “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study” with over 22 pages of references. In it he calculates that there were less than 20,000 animals on the ark with the average size being smaller than a sheep. He thoroughly demonstrates the feasibility of eight people taking care of the animals, food and water requirements, waste management, etc.

In Genesis 6:20 the Bible states that representative “kinds” of animals went on the ark. Therefore, although there are many different types of cats in the world, creationists point out that there may have been only one or two “kinds” originally. Likewise, there are over 600 different names of dinosaurs. But there are probably less than 50 different kinds. Every time a new dinosaur bone is found it seems to be given a different name. At Fernbank, for example, there is one foot bone of a dinosaur and it is named “Albertosaurus.” That is, many dinosaur names are the same for the same creature.

Oh ye of little faith.

76 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 6:46:30pm

Has anyone ever taken the time to add up the sizes and weights of "two of every animal" that has ever existed and exists today, and added to that the amount of food, by weight and volume, all of these animals would need to sustain themselves for forty days (including the carnivores, the feeding of which would of course necessitate much more than just "two of every animal"), and then used such info to calculate just how large Noah's Ark would have to actually be to pull this off?

I am no mathematician, but I'd bet Noah's Ark would have to be at least the size of Japan, and much like a glacier, would have many more volumes of space plunging below the water line compared to what is visible above it.

77 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 7:15:09pm

re: #76 Slumbering Behemoth

Has anyone ever taken the time to add up the sizes and weights of "two of every animal" that has ever existed and exists today, and added to that the amount of food, by weight and volume, all of these animals would need to sustain themselves for forty days (including the carnivores, the feeding of which would of course necessitate much more than just "two of every animal"), and then used such info to calculate just how large Noah's Ark would have to actually be to pull this off?

I am no mathematician, but I'd bet Noah's Ark would have to be at least the size of Japan, and much like a glacier, would have many more volumes of space plunging below the water line compared to what is visible above it.

Obviously, you are an atheist who hates Christians.

78 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 7:18:50pm

re: #77 Charles

Obviously, you are an atheist who hates Christians.

And I also sell Amway!

//vilify me

79 jaunte  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 7:20:04pm

re: #76 Slumbering Behemoth

Add to that the effects of the human-specific microorganisms and small parasites that would have had to infest the humans aboard to survive the flood year.
[Link: paleo.cc...]

80 Basho  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 7:33:04pm

I can't believe people today in the 21st century are actually trying to come up with a way for the Noah's Ark story to actually be possible. I didn't even think that when I was seven doing catechism or whatever the Catholic tradition at that age is called.

Voltaire must be spinning like jet engine turbine in his grave.

81 Emerald  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 7:52:32pm

re: #75 Charles
You'd think at some point they'd realize the amount of bs they have to think of to support their arguments would give them a clue that they're loons.

re: #76 Slumbering Behemoth

Has anyone ever taken the time to add up the sizes and weights of "two of every animal" that has ever existed and exists today, and added to that the amount of food, by weight and volume, all of these animals would need to sustain themselves for forty days (including the carnivores, the feeding of which would of course necessitate much more than just "two of every animal"), and then used such info to calculate just how large Noah's Ark would have to actually be to pull this off?

I am no mathematician, but I'd bet Noah's Ark would have to be at least the size of Japan, and much like a glacier, would have many more volumes of space plunging below the water line compared to what is visible above it.

I'll have to see if I can find the article I read on this once. I don't remember the exact size, but they showed it was impossible to build a boat big enough to handle just the animals Noah could have rounded up (No kangaroos, possums and such) using the techniques and materials available at the time. The amount of food necessary was staggering, both in quantity and variety.

82 Emerald  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 7:54:47pm

re: #80 Basho

I can't believe people today in the 21st century are actually trying to come up with a way for the Noah's Ark story to actually be possible. I didn't even think that when I was seven doing catechism or whatever the Catholic tradition at that age is called.

Voltaire must be spinning like jet engine turbine in his grave.

I went to parochial school and the nuns never attempted to make us think it was real. Of course, in third grade we were asking how Noah got kangaroos from Australia and buffalo from America, and where did they get the bamboo for the pandas in the middle of a desert.

83 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 7:56:47pm

re: #81 Emerald

Perhaps you haven't seen me link this before, but science did prove Noah's Flood.

It was local.

Youtube Video
84 Emerald  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 8:00:53pm

re: #83 Sharmuta

Perhaps you haven't seen me link this before, but science did prove Noah's Flood.

It was local.


[Video]

Oh, yeah. I meant real in the entire planet was covered in water for 40 days literal sense. All the religions in that area have stories of a great flood; there had to be a reason behind it.

85 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 8:02:48pm

re: #84 Emerald

You might enjoy the BBC's program. It's about the two geologists that proved the local flood, and how they did it. I really enjoyed the program, so I like passing it on to others.

86 Emerald  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 8:05:52pm

re: #85 Sharmuta

You might enjoy the BBC's program. It's about the two geologists that proved the local flood, and how they did it. I really enjoyed the program, so I like passing it on to others.

I only watched the first couple minutes, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it before. If it's the same one, I agree on how well it was done. I'll have to catch the rest of it later to see if it's different.

87 Emerald  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 8:11:28pm

re: #79 jaunte

Add to that the effects of the human-specific microorganisms and small parasites that would have had to infest the humans aboard to survive the flood year.
[Link: paleo.cc...]

Or the logistical arrangements to prevent cross-species contamination. I have a friend who raises poultry. You can't have chickens and turkeys living in the same area. A common, harmless disease in one is fatal to the other.

I've always wondered what happened to all the fish. Saltwater fish are incredibly sensitive to changes in salinity. You get enough fresh water to cover the entire planet's surface, and you've changed the salinity of the seas. Freshwater fish are more forgiving, but there's still a limit to how much salt they can tolerate.

88 Basho  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 8:16:06pm

re: #41 TheHistorian


The issue on not teaching all sides of a theory is the same as the economic theory that is being used to support this abysmal stimulus package. There is no proof it works, there is lots of proof it doesn't, but to slow down and examine the theory is heresy. So, with belief in theories like evolution, we proceed on with Keynesian economics.

I meant to say this earlier but I got caught up in the fun of the "What, Me Worry?" thread. Anyway...

This country was built and was better off under Keynesian economics. Supply side econ and its spinoffs like Laffer curve nonsense can be traced to a lot of economic problems the world over. I'm sure people will disagree with me, but that's my informed opinion.

I hope the stimulus package helps the economy. I'm skeptical for several reasons, such as the completely mess the bank bailout plan turned out to be.

But whatever, TheHistorian has gotten me off topic again.

Good night, all.

89 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 8:26:41pm

re: #87 Emerald

I've always wondered what happened to all the fish. Saltwater fish are incredibly sensitive to changes in salinity. You get enough fresh water to cover the entire planet's surface, and you've changed the salinity of the seas. Freshwater fish are more forgiving, but there's still a limit to how much salt they can tolerate.

Obviously, they would have to have tanks on the Ark to accommodate them, accounting of course for the separation of the variety of species that would prey on each other.

I really would like to see a scale representation of a "Real Ark" compared to, say, the Empire State building. I'd bet that building wouldn't even appear as large as a dot next to the "Real Ark".

90 experiencedtraveller  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 8:51:46pm

re: #69 Charles

And ... this is why I'm seriously considering automatically blocking accounts that haven't been used for several months. There's some kind of funny business going on here.

I hope you think this one through, dear Charles.

A lot of good lizards lurk (or give themselves 'time outs'!)

Isn't one of the greatest attributes of freedom the freedom to ignore it all?

91 Ziggy Standard  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 8:51:46pm

All creationist bills must die.

92 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 9:35:07pm

re: #90 experiencedtraveller

I'd worry most about Lizards who have accidents/surgeries/etc., and wind up in traction for a good length of time.

Our host is not an a-hole, though. One e-mail explaining the situation would no doubt return the Lizard's account to good standing.

93 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 9:43:35pm

I notice that after he got his creationist clock cleaned, TheHistorian downdinged this thread...;~)

94 jaunte  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 9:44:58pm

re: #93 Salamantis

I will neutralize that with another upding.

95 landlines  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:03:23pm

Evolutionary theory is just that: a Theory. Not a proven fact. No independently reproducible experiments to test the theory. It is conjectures built upon more conjectures.

In fact, "evolution" is every bit as much a "faith-based" theory as "creation." The only difference between the two is purely political: no true science is involved at all.

And please spare me the "consensus" argument: Columbus made his discoveries while defying the "flat earth" theory which was the consensus of the day. True science is always questioning everything and designing experiments to support or disprove every theory...whether it represents the "consensus" or not.

96 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:05:18pm

And another sleeper pops up.

97 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:09:20pm

I'm sure you won't read it, or if you do, you'll just dismiss it out of willful ignorance, but evolution is a theory and a fact.

98 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:17:55pm

re: #95 landlines

Explain hiccups, hernias, sexual dimorphism, retroviral DNA, and embryology.

99 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:19:50pm

BTW- Is Noah's Ark a true story? -from Penn and Teller's Bullshit

Youtube Video
100 theotherwaldo  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:22:09pm

I don't think that you understand what you are saying.

Science is a system of testing, not of belief. When you accept a scientific result, science ends and belief begins. Testing must be continuous, never-ending, otherwise science is meaningless.

I do not mean to imply that evolution did not occur and is not occurring. What I say is that the evolutionary record is incredibly sparse, with many false connections and incorrect assumptions. The evolutionary record has been completely re-arranged several times in my lifetime, and the changes are speeding up rather than slowing.

Freezing the record as it is now and teaching it as fact is doing a dis-service to our students, turning science into something else entirely.

-Ban me if you like.

101 Charles Johnson  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:24:59pm

re: #100 theotherwaldo

I challenged you to NAME some of this "valid contradictory evidence" you claimed to know about.

You didn't. Instead you just came back with more empty assertions.

Imagine my surprise.

102 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:26:06pm

re: #95 landlines

Evolutionary theory is just that: a Theory. Not a proven fact. No independently reproducible experiments to test the theory. It is conjectures built upon more conjectures.

In fact, "evolution" is every bit as much a "faith-based" theory as "creation." The only difference between the two is purely political: no true science is involved at all.

And please spare me the "consensus" argument: Columbus made his discoveries while defying the "flat earth" theory which was the consensus of the day. True science is always questioning everything and designing experiments to support or disprove every theory...whether it represents the "consensus" or not.

This same old tired crapola has already been discredited and debunked ad nauseum ad infinitum on this site - and I did it yet again, in post #38 on this very thread:

re: #38 Salamantis

Apparently you haven't read the thread before you vomited your pre-defeated pedestrian asininity all over it. But this is typical of creationist shills; they have their mouths so wide open screaming their repeatedly refuted PR propaganda talking points that their lips get stretched over their eyes, and they can't see to read jack shit.

103 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:26:33pm

re: #95 landlines

Failing to elevate faith to the level of science, the blinkered creationist attempts to reduce science to the level of faith, and fails just as horribly.

No doubt, the taste of both failures will burn in its mouth, spurring it to spout more lies and inanity.

104 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:33:03pm

re: #100 theotherwaldo

No- I don't think you know what you are saying. You are basically telling me there are no facts, because accepting the results of scientific tests is still a belief. That it utterly ridiculous. No matter how many times you test it, science is still going to say water freezes at 32 degrees fahrenheit. Is this a fact, or a belief?

105 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:34:32pm

re: #100 theotherwaldo

What I say is that the evolutionary record is incredibly sparse, with many false connections and incorrect assumptions.

Either cite these 'false connections' and 'incorrect assumptions', or admit that you are at best ignorant, or at worst a bold faced liar.


The evolutionary record has been completely re-arranged several times in my lifetime, and the changes are speeding up rather than slowing.

Scientific theories change as more evidence is found. The more evidence that is found in any given period of time, the faster those changes take place. In the case of the ToE, the mountains of evidence that have been coming in faster and faster only confirm its validity.

Show me, specifically, where these "re-arrangements" invalidate the strength of the ToE.

106 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:38:09pm

re: #100 theotherwaldo

I don't think that you understand what you are saying.

Science is a system of testing, not of belief. When you accept a scientific result, science ends and belief begins. Testing must be continuous, never-ending, otherwise science is meaningless.

I do not mean to imply that evolution did not occur and is not occurring. What I say is that the evolutionary record is incredibly sparse, with many false connections and incorrect assumptions. The evolutionary record has been completely re-arranged several times in my lifetime, and the changes are speeding up rather than slowing.

Freezing the record as it is now and teaching it as fact is doing a dis-service to our students, turning science into something else entirely.

-Ban me if you like.

Please furnish exampls of these alleged and purported 'false connections' and 'incorrect assumptions.'

The evolutionary record is not being stringently ordered as we speak, as the genomes of more and more species are being decoded, and the degree of relation between them is precisely fixed. There have so far been no major surprises, only fine tuning on the periphery.

What is being taught is NOT being 'frozen'; that's what happens with religious dogmas, which are fixed like flies in ancient amber regardless of subsequent empirical evidence falsifying their contentions; the theories of empirical science continue to evolve, and to be augmented, elaborated and refined to assimilate and accommodate new experimental data. And yet, after 150 years, the core tenets of evolution remain as solid, valid, sound, and empirical-evidence-supported as any in empirical science.

The 'god of the gaps' argument progressively weakens, as the gaps continue to decrease and narrow, and there is no reason whatsoever to anticipate this trend not continuing until they for all practical purposes disappear entirely.

And just because there are some things that we DON'T yet know doesn't mean that there aren't a helluva lotta things that we DO know, and one of the things we know beyond rational statistical doubt is that evolution via random genetic mutation and nonrandom environmental selection has, over the past 3 1/2 billion years, resulted in the plethora of terrestrial species that we observe today. Because that's what obsevably happens when populations of organisms possessing high but imperfect copying fidelity are confronted by surrounding ecologies comprised of specific challenges and opportunities.

107 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:41:17pm

re: #96 Charles

And another sleeper pops up.

I think he was hoping people would be asleep or inattentive at this late hour, so that his baseless and groundless contentions would sit here all night before being shown up as the asinine assertions that they are.

Fat chance.

108 theotherwaldo  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:41:20pm

You obviously haven't been paying attention in class. I've been watching cases where conical shell segments have been mis-identified as teeth, from which entire fanciful animals were dreamed up, complete with ecologies and relationships with other equally unreal creatures. These creatures were in the science books when I went to school. Better scholarship deposed these creatures and put them in a more realistic place in the record, but of course the record is not complete.

I'm not saying that evolution is a false science, I'm saying that it is a far-from-complete science. It is just barely beginning to get a handle on the sequences of development. Most of the branchings between, say, chickens and avian dinosaurs are composed almost entirely of dotted lines and question marks.

109 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:43:03pm

re: #106 Salamantis

The evolutionary record is now being stringently ordered as we speak...

PIMF

110 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:47:07pm

Just some food for thought on the sleepers, Charles-

They do provide an opportunity for us to use all the lovely Darwinist links we've all collected. And the level of gammey buttocks would be reduced should you block them for inactivity. I think the non-posting, consistent stealth dingers are worse than an occasional creationist sleeper, but I leave it to you to decide.

111 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:55:57pm

re: #108 theotherwaldo

You obviously haven't been paying attention in class. I've been watching cases where conical shell segments have been mis-identified as teeth, from which entire fanciful animals were dreamed up, complete with ecologies and relationships with other equally unreal creatures. These creatures were in the science books when I went to school. Better scholarship deposed these creatures and put them in a more realistic place in the record, but of course the record is not complete.

Please furnish documentation for your shells-mistaken-for-teeth assertion. If it happened at all, I'll bet it was a looooong time ago. I don't think humans live long enough for such examples to have been in current science textbooks when you went to school.

Unlike religious dogma, empirical science is self-correcting, and by - whoda think it? - empirical scientists themselves. And the record will NEVER be complete, because every organism that dies did not leave a perfectly preserved fossil, but most of the major gaps that formerly existed have been filled in, and the complete genomic mapping of all living species is only a matter of time. Based upon the genomic evidence, specifically the artifactual retroviral DNA sequence evidence, the common ancestry of distinct species can no longer be rationally doubted.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

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

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

I'm not saying that evolution is a false science, I'm saying that it is a far-from-complete science. It is just barely beginning to get a handle on the sequences of development. Most of the branchings between, say, chickens and avian dinosaurs are composed almost entirely of dotted lines and question marks.

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

Actually, the cladistic lines of evolution between them are being filled in more and more in the past few decades. And, btw, please provide me with an alternative nonevolutionary explanation that accounts for ANY of the empirical data, much less ALL of it, as evolution does. You can't. There isn't one.

[Link: ase.tufts.edu...]

112 Sharmuta  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:57:21pm

re: #108 theotherwaldo

Most of the branchings between, say, chickens and avian dinosaurs are composed almost entirely of dotted lines and question marks.

Perhaps it is you that has not been paying attention:

Genetic Sequencing of T. rex Confirms Dinosaurs' Link to Birds

Molecular analysis, or genetic sequencing, of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex protein from the dinosaur's femur confirms that T. rex shares a common ancestry with chickens, ostriches, and to a lesser extent, alligators.

Dotted lines, my ass.

113 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:02:03pm

re: #108 theotherwaldo

With new and improved formatting!

You obviously haven't been paying attention in class. I've been watching cases where conical shell segments have been mis-identified as teeth, from which entire fanciful animals were dreamed up, complete with ecologies and relationships with other equally unreal creatures. These creatures were in the science books when I went to school. Better scholarship deposed these creatures and put them in a more realistic place in the record, but of course the record is not complete.

Please furnish documentation for your shells-mistaken-for-teeth assertion. If it happened at all, I'll bet it was a looooong time ago. I don't think humans live long enough for such examples to have been in current science textbooks when you went to school.

Unlike religious dogma, empirical science is self-correcting, and by - whoda think it? - empirical scientists themselves. And the record will NEVER be complete, because every organism that dies did not leave a perfectly preserved fossil, but most of the major gaps that formerly existed have been filled in, and the complete genomic mapping of all living species is only a matter of time. Based upon the genomic evidence, specifically the artifactual retroviral DNA sequence evidence, the common ancestry of distinct species can no longer be rationally doubted.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

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

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

I'm not saying that evolution is a false science, I'm saying that it is a far-from-complete science. It is just barely beginning to get a handle on the sequences of development. Most of the branchings between, say, chickens and avian dinosaurs are composed almost entirely of dotted lines and question marks.

Actually, the cladistic lines of evolution between them are being filled in more and more in the past few decades. And, btw, please provide me with an alternative nonevolutionary explanation that accounts for ANY of the empirical data, much less ALL of it, as evolution does. You can't. There isn't one.

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

[Link: ase.tufts.edu...]

114 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:03:16pm

These folks are typical, just because THEY don't klnow something, they think that NOBODY knows it.

115 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:06:57pm

It's the same old 2500 year old Greek logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium), with a dash of the related argument from incredulity seasoned in.

116 theotherwaldo  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:10:12pm

Rein in your ego, Salamantis.

The record is changing as we watch. Yahoo just posted an entry that questions the validity of the dates set for the development of complex annelids: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090328/sc_livescience/bigblobschangeviewofevolution.

Wait a few minutes and it will change again.

117 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:11:48pm

re: #108 theotherwaldo


You obviously haven't been paying attention in class. I've been watching cases where conical shell segments have been mis-identified as teeth, from which entire fanciful animals were dreamed up, complete with ecologies and relationships with other equally unreal creatures. These creatures were in the science books when I went to school.

In this case, I think you are confusing religious fables and folklore with science text books. If not, it would be integral to your credibility if you could link directly to these school text books, and also link to or give the name and address of the school you attended that used such text books.

118 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:15:20pm

re: #110 Sharmuta

I concur with Sharmuta here. It is the debate between the science deniers and science advocates, and the evidence that the latter provided (as well as the lack thereof the former has provided) which has helped build and strengthen my understanding of the subject.

119 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:25:48pm

re: #116 theotherwaldo

Perhaps it is you who needs to rein in yours. That you think a new piece evidence that actually refines and helps to solidify the theory in question is instead evidence to refute it shines a bright light on the hubris of your denial.

120 theotherwaldo  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:30:49pm

What? No one is going to tell me that bumping the first accepted evidence of complex life forward 1.2 billion years is insignificant? That teaching that complex life dates back 580 million years is different from teaching that it dates back 1.8 billion years?

As I said, i don't question that evolution exists. I question those that say that they have it all figured out.

121 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:31:22pm

re: #116 theotherwaldo

Rein in your ego, Salamantis.

The record is changing as we watch. Yahoo just posted an entry that questions the validity of the dates set for the development of complex annelids: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090328/sc_li vescience/bigblobschangeviewofevolution.

Wait a few minutes and it will change again.

It isn't just arbitrary change, as creationist apologists attempting to use postmodernist critiques such as Kuhn's would have one believe; it is asymptotic convergence upon the actual facts of the matter. Each new discovery brings us a more correct and complete understanding. The attempt to reduce all assertions into equally disputable and directionless cultural narratives was well, thoroughly, and quite rightly lampooned in the Sokal Affair.

This discovery does nothing to dispute evolution's core tenets. Show me one that DOES.

122 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:34:18pm

re: #120 theotherwaldo

What? No one is going to tell me that bumping the first accepted evidence of complex life forward 1.2 billion years is insignificant? That teaching that complex life dates back 580 million years is different from teaching that it dates back 1.8 billion years?

As I said, i don't question that evolution exists. I question those that say that they have it all figured out.

Do you deny that we have the age of life first appearing on this planet at (at least) 3.5 billion years ago figured out? Or the common ancestry between humans and great apes? Or that these incontrovertible facts falsify literalist readings of Genesis?

123 theotherwaldo  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:39:19pm

I am not trying to say that evolution is not valid. I'm trying to say that the advocates of evolution are improperly laying out their pet theories as facts, and teaching theories as facts is very poor science.

I am not trying to dispute evolution's core tenets. I am simply saying that teaching students to accept theories as facts will stunt their scientific development.

124 theotherwaldo  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:44:20pm
Do you deny that we have the age of life first appearing on this planet at (at least) 3.5 billion years ago figured out? Or the common ancestry between humans and great apes? Or that these incontrovertible facts falsify literalist readings of Genesis?

No. Do you? -and how did Genesis get in the discussion?

125 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:51:27pm

re: #123 theotherwaldo

I am not trying to say that evolution is not valid. I'm trying to say that the advocates of evolution are improperly laying out their pet theories as facts, and teaching theories as facts is very poor science.

I am not trying to dispute evolution's core tenets. I am simply saying that teaching students to accept theories as facts will stunt their scientific development.

Evolution, the change in terrestrial species populations over time, is indeed a fact. Most species that are alive today were not around long ago, and most species that were around long ago are no longer around. The theory part has to do with the process by which this change transpires. And the core process of random genetic evolution acted upon by nonrandom environmental selection is so massively verified that the difference between their statistical probability and apodictic certainty is vanishingly small. We know beyond all rational doubt that DNA is the physical substrate by means of which encoded traits remain or change between gnerations, and are now manipulating genomes and producing living organisms with specifically engineered properties, such as rice with daffodil sequences spliced in to produce Vitamin A rich grain that keeps poor se asian kids from contracting rickets, and mice with spliced in jellyfish bioluminescence sequences that glow, to help us better study the fine grained structure and function of induced malignant tumors.

Spontaneous evolutionary mutation has been observed in Richard Lenski's laboratory, and since he saved samples of his e coli every few generations, he can unfreeze some and replay it at will. And it's a major mutation; the mutated e. coli can metabolize citric acid; the inability to do so has long been a species marker for e. coli.

[Link: myxo.css.msu.edu...]

And all that is very GOOD science.

126 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:55:35pm

re: #124 theotherwaldo

No. Do you? -and how did Genesis get in the discussion?

Most folks who dispute the veracity of evolution on these threads have creationist ulterior motives and agendas.

Are you a creationist? And I'm speaking not of the kind of person who thinks that some deity might have had a hand in the Big Bang, but one who contends that God designed and created terrestrial species separately and as is.

127 Salamantis  Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:57:42pm

In other words, we're not just talking abstract theory any more; we are concretely applying this stuff, and it passes the empirical test of truth: it works.

128 Mr Secul  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 3:24:07am

re: #82 Emerald

Of course, in third grade we were asking how Noah got kangaroos from Australia and buffalo from America, and where did they get the bamboo for the pandas in the middle of a desert.

I think we've all done that at some time in our childhood. What kind of child would take the Ark story seriously?

Its another example of how a little learning of natural history can undermine a ridiculous story. And it also demonstrates why the Creationists want to undermine education. They need to prevent children learning enough to debunk their nonsense.

129 Mr Secul  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 4:14:50am

re: #123 theotherwaldo

I am not trying to say that evolution is not valid. I'm trying to say that the advocates of evolution are improperly laying out their pet theories as facts, and teaching theories as facts is very poor science.

I am not trying to dispute evolution's core tenets. I am simply saying that teaching students to accept theories as facts will stunt their scientific development.

That is a classic straw man argument.

The Theory of Evolution is clearly labeled as a theory. The clue is in the name.

And there is the fact of evolution, that the collections of species alive at any time in earth's history have changed. This fact is separate from the theories that attempt to explain the fact.

Do you question the fact of evolution? Do you believe that humans lived with dinosaurs? Is The Flintstones essentially correct?

130 Mr Secul  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 4:33:38am

re: #123 theotherwaldo

I am not trying to say that evolution is not valid. I'm trying to say that the advocates of evolution are improperly laying out their pet theories as facts, and teaching theories as facts is very poor science.

I am not trying to dispute evolution's core tenets. I am simply saying that teaching students to accept theories as facts will stunt their scientific development.

You aren't fooling anyone here. Why single out evolution? Why is evolutionary theory uniquely naughty science? Why does it need special attention?

You cited examples of scientists telling the public that they think they got something wrong. Your big blobs article was not an example of investigative journalism. The scientists told the world. The journalists didn't have a man on the inside who blew the whistle on the devious scientists.

So you cite an example of biologists publicizing their findings and you claim that they need special supervision to prevent them from covering up their uncertainty.

Anyone spot the contradiction?

131 Emerald  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 5:13:25am

re: #95 landlines

Evolutionary theory is just that: a Theory.


Are you really that stupid or don't you know what a scientific theory is? It has a very different meaning than the everyday usage. Why should anyone listen to someone so ignorant of basic facts?

Not a proven fact. No independently reproducible experiments to test the theory. It is conjectures built upon more conjectures.


And the last 150 years of research is just make-believe in your ignorant little world.


In fact, "evolution" is every bit as much a "faith-based" theory as "creation." The only difference between the two is purely political: no true science is involved at all.


Again, all you do is show just how amazingly ignorant you are. Name a single testable hypothesis for creationism. Show a single bit of empirical evidences to support it. List a single scientific experiment carried out in creationism.

You can't, because creationism is religion. You can find innumerable examples for evolution because it is science. Your stupidity or lies can't change that, no matter how many times you sneak into a old thread and try to get the last world.

132 Emerald  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 5:21:50am

re: #100 theotherwaldo

Assuming for a moment that you even have the faintest clue what you're talking about, so what? Science evolves. When new evidence emerges, science re-evaluates its positions. Sometimes the evidence fits with the prevailing understanding, sometimes it requires a change.

Have you read any physics? In the past century, the entire field was completely turned upside down. Did that cause bridges to fall down? Telegraphs and telephones to stop working? Did steamships suddenly sink to the bottom of the ocean? Of course they didn't, but by your reasoning they must have because the new information made the old worthless.

This is the key difference between science and creationism. Science is based on facts; creationism is the blind adherence to a Dark Ages dogma that rejects facts.

Speaking of facts, how about providing some of the ones you claim to have. It should make you a very rich man. The creationists would love to have something that would stand up in court or a lab.

133 Emerald  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 5:25:51am

re: #123 theotherwaldo

I am not trying to say that evolution is not valid. I'm trying to say that the advocates of evolution are improperly laying out their pet theories as facts, and teaching theories as facts is very poor science.

I am not trying to dispute evolution's core tenets. I am simply saying that teaching students to accept theories as facts will stunt their scientific development.

Do you deny gravity? More is understood about evolution as a scientific process than is understood about gravity.

134 alexknyc  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 5:52:28am

re: #95 landlines

And please spare me the "consensus" argument: Columbus made his discoveries while defying the "flat earth" theory which was the consensus of the day. True science is always questioning everything and designing experiments to support or disprove every theory...whether it represents the "consensus" or not.

Columbus and the "flat Earth theory?" I guess the fact that the ancient Greeks knew the world was round (and calculated the circumference at the equator to a remarkable degree of accuracy) wasn't taught in your school. Like many children's stories, it's inaccurate. No one thought the world was flat back then.

Perhaps you were too busy learning all the "evidence" against evolution to bother with real science and learning.

135 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 7:19:55am

re: #123 theotherwaldo

I am not trying to say that evolution is not valid. I'm trying to say that the advocates of evolution are improperly laying out their pet theories as facts, and teaching theories as facts is very poor science.

I am not trying to dispute evolution's core tenets. I am simply saying that teaching students to accept theories as facts will stunt their scientific development.

Are you saying the fact that there isn't a single shred of evidence to support an alternative theory to evolution should not be presented to biology students? That when teaching biology students about the theory of evolution, teachers should present alternatives that have no supporting evidence? That a theory with 150 years of rigorous examination and mountains of supporting evidence presented to students will actually stunt their development and understanding of science?

This is such a fallacious argument, that if applied to any other field of study, say mathematics, would fall flat on its face. Perhaps teaching children the fact that 1+1=2 is stunting their mathematical development! Poppycock? You bet.

The fact of the matter is science teachers are also teaching the scientific method to students, and a simple adherence to the scientific method would lead students to accept the veracity of evolution. Just because some people don't like the implications of a scientifically derived conclusion doesn't alter the veracity of that conclusion. That you advocate for the actual stunting of the scientific development of biology students is, I'm sure, lost on you.

136 theotherwaldo  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 8:09:14am

All that I'm trying to say is that, as usual, the politicians are trying to do the right things for the wrong reasons. In the original article, they advocate presenting the theory of evolution sceptically:

Sen. Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville, filed the bill in the Senate in late February. It would require that public schools “teach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution” in science classes.


Skepticism is required for scientific advancement unless it is actually merely camouflage to cover a closed mind. Then it is merely a shield for dogma.

Excuse me, now. I have to go to work. I'm a librarian, and I have to help the children separate yesterday's fallacious theories from today's currently-accepted theories - so that they can go on learning.

137 Emerald  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 8:11:03am

re: #136 theotherwaldo
Sure where are those facts you claim to have? Coward. No one buys your running away when you can't face facts. You're a liar and not a particularly effective one.

138 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 8:15:14am

re: #136 theotherwaldo

Skepticism has been applied to the theory of evolution for 150 years, and the result is evolution is the most validated and empirically supported theory in all of science.

139 Mr Secul  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 8:58:15am

re: #136 theotherwaldo

Skepticism is required for scientific advancement

Really?!? My God! why didn't anybody tell me that before?

No wait, I'm sure I was told that in all my science classes: in Astronomy, Biology, Botany, Chemistry, Geology, Marine Science and Physics. And if memory serves, it was the biologists that emphasized this the most.

Its total BS that scientists are totally unaware that they should question things and evaluate evidence. Their jobs are based on evaluating competing theories to judge their strengths and weaknesses. That's why they have no time for Creationism and that's why they saw straight through ID.

140 Charles Johnson  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 9:57:10am

re: #108 theotherwaldo

You obviously haven't been paying attention in class. I've been watching cases where conical shell segments have been mis-identified as teeth, from which entire fanciful animals were dreamed up, complete with ecologies and relationships with other equally unreal creatures.

Complete BS. Please give us some more details on this so-called misidentification. I predict this will turn out to be a talking point from a creationist website.

If you can even provide any more details, that is.

141 Ziggy Standard  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 10:04:37am

re: #136 theotherwaldo

Skepticism is required for scientific advancement unless it is actually merely camouflage to cover a closed mind. Then it is merely a shield for dogma.

Evolution has passed countless rounds of sceptical analysis with flying colours. The creationist 'alternatives' have failed spectacularly not to say comically at every hurdle.

Nothing goes against the whole idea of scepticism more than a failure to be honest about the outcome of sceptical analyses - and that's exactly what you and your fellow creationists are doing.

142 Salamantis  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 2:01:13pm

re: #136 theotherwaldo

All that I'm trying to say is that, as usual, the politicians are trying to do the right things for the wrong reasons. In the original article, they advocate presenting the theory of evolution sceptically:

Sen. Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville, filed the bill in the Senate in late February. It would require that public schools “teach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution” in science classes.

Skepticism is required for scientific advancement unless it is actually merely camouflage to cover a closed mind. Then it is merely a shield for dogma.

Excuse me, now. I have to go to work. I'm a librarian, and I have to help the children separate yesterday's fallacious theories from today's currently-accepted theories - so that they can go on learning.

Here's the reason that the bill was proposed:

[Link: www.jacksonville.com...]

What the sponsors mean by 'critical analysis' (note that the bill does NOT say 'scientific or empirical analysis') is the introduction of creationism/ID propaganda talking points. The appealing sounding words 'critical analysis', like the appealing sounding words 'teach the controversy' and 'academic freedom' before them, are trojan label lipstick slapped on the same creationist pig

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

[Link: www.aaas.org...]

[Link: ncseweb.org...]

[Link: science2.marion.ohio-state.edu...]

[Link: www.flascience.org...]

The Disco Institute actually partners with fundamentalist preachers in order to program public high school students to be zombic memebots spouting out one debunked talking point after another:

[Link: ncseweb.org...]

Can you imagine five such students in each biology class spouting half a dozen such pseudopoints, and being given different ones to use in their classes day after day after day? The kids would be able to learn NOTHING in class, because such tactics would stifle all class bioscience education by occupying all of the class time in answering the scripted objections of those obstructionist kids - and that is precisely the Disco Institute's purpose, the pastors' purpose, and the bill's purpose. And you think that this is a GOOD thing for science education?

And such cynically manipulative rhetoric in the service of obscure lies can be very difficult for your average high school science teacher to refute:

[Link: timpanogos.wordpress.com...]

[Link: www.teachthemscience.org...]

And yet this kind of continuing creationist-fomented obfuscation and harassment of public high school science teachers in the service of the totasl shutdown of high school bioscience education is what this bill would inflict upon the science teachers if my home state, and you are apparently in favor of that. Or else you were merely seduced and deceived by the PR propaganda labeling.

If the creationist propagandists just bamboozled you with their pretty labels, I am glad that I was able to enlighten you as to their true intent and the actual effect of this bill. Otoh, if you were already aware of their rhetorically camouflaged purposes, and are just trying to run interference for these bastards, then fuck you very much.

143 theotherwaldo  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 5:34:48pm

What an unusual debating technique. Do you always attack those that agree with you? And your language! So High Road! I suspect that you are a very lonely person.

Anyway, as a librarian and former middle-school teacher, I know the dangers of allowing anything into the curriculum. Once it is in, it can never be entirely removed. Evolution exists and continues. That is a fact. The ever-changing theories that are under the umbrella of Evolution are merely theories.

If you had bothered to check the current science curriculum for middle and high school you would find that it is stuffed full of old and dis-proven "facts" which cannot be removed or modified because they are part of the accepted curriculum.

I agree that creationism has no place in the science classroom. I insist that other untruths should not be dubbed as facts and added to the curriculum simply because they have, at one time or other, been part of the theory of evolution.

The scientific method must be followed or it is not science.

Now go ahead. Cry "Heretic" and wave your torch on high.

144 Emerald  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 5:45:29pm

re: #143 theotherwaldo

Where are the facts you claim to have? Put up or shut up. And you aren't fooling anyone by hiding out until the thread isn't active any longer.

145 Charles Johnson  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 5:48:14pm

re: #143 theotherwaldo

What an unusual debating technique. Do you always attack those that agree with you? And your language! So High Road! I suspect that you are a very lonely person.

Anyway, as a librarian and former middle-school teacher, I know the dangers of allowing anything into the curriculum. Once it is in, it can never be entirely removed. Evolution exists and continues. That is a fact. The ever-changing theories that are under the umbrella of Evolution are merely theories.

If you had bothered to check the current science curriculum for middle and high school you would find that it is stuffed full of old and dis-proven "facts" which cannot be removed or modified because they are part of the accepted curriculum.

I agree that creationism has no place in the science classroom. I insist that other untruths should not be dubbed as facts and added to the curriculum simply because they have, at one time or other, been part of the theory of evolution.

The scientific method must be followed or it is not science.

Now go ahead. Cry "Heretic" and wave your torch on high.

Yeah, right, whatever, you're being persecuted.

Meanwhile, you STILL have not provided a single bit of that "valid contradictory evidence" you claimed to know about, and you STILL have not answered my question about your claim that:

conical shell segments have been mis-identified as teeth, from which entire fanciful animals were dreamed up, complete with ecologies and relationships with other equally unreal creatures.

Where's that evidence? And what are you talking about in the quote above?

146 Salamantis  Sun, Mar 29, 2009 6:14:15pm

re: #143 theotherwaldo

What an unusual debating technique. Do you always attack those that agree with you? And your language! So High Road! I suspect that you are a very lonely person.

Anyway, as a librarian and former middle-school teacher, I know the dangers of allowing anything into the curriculum. Once it is in, it can never be entirely removed. Evolution exists and continues. That is a fact. The ever-changing theories that are under the umbrella of Evolution are merely theories.

If you had bothered to check the current science curriculum for middle and high school you would find that it is stuffed full of old and dis-proven "facts" which cannot be removed or modified because they are part of the accepted curriculum.

I agree that creationism has no place in the science classroom. I insist that other untruths should not be dubbed as facts and added to the curriculum simply because they have, at one time or other, been part of the theory of evolution.

The scientific method must be followed or it is not science.

Now go ahead. Cry "Heretic" and wave your torch on high.

What an exceedingly ignorant thing to say! The Florida high school science curriculum was updated just last year; the creationists were pushing this trojan horse bill because they were unsuccessful in getting their religiopolitical agenda included in them.

But if you knew anything whatsoever about the history of this issue in my home state, you would not make such an elementary factual mistake.

If you define cramming propagandistic creationist crapola into the young and trusting brains of everybody's children in public high school class as 'agreeing' with me, you've got a surpassingly sick, twisted, warped and demented definition of the word. But, unlike you, I will not attempt to delve into ad hominem cyberpsychoanalysis in order to endeavor to characterize the mind that would be capable of embracing such a misdefinition. You can merrily trip down that primrose path unaccompanied.

And once again you gratuitously brandish the hoary old 'just a theory' canard that has been conclusively refuted multiple times on this very thread. Do you have a problem with short term memory, or is it basic comprehension skills that you lack? Or did you still simply not read the thread?

Some theories come and go, while others come and stay. And Darwinian/Mendelian evolution via random genetic mutation and nonrandom environmental selection is as much of a massively experimentally confirmed stayer as are Pasteur's germ theory of infection, Copernicus' heliocentric theory of the solar system, Newton's celestial mechanics and theory of universal gravitation, einsteinian relativity and mass-energy conversion, and feynmannian quantum mechanics.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 78 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 251 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1