The Republican war on science and honesty continues....
http://ncse.com/news/2012/02/second-oklahoma-bill-attacks-evolution-climate-change-007221
A bill in Oklahoma that would, if enacted, encourage teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution" and "global warming" is back from the dead. Entitled the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act," House Bill 1551 was introduced in the Oklahoma House of Representatives in 2011 by Sally Kern (R-District 84), a persistent sponsor of antievolution legislation in the Sooner State, and referred to the House Common Education Committee. It was rejected there on February 22, 2011, on a 7-9 vote. But, as The Oklahoman (February 23, 2011) reported, the vote was not final, since a sponsor "could ask the committee to bring it up again this session or next year." And indeed, on February 20, 2012, Gus Blackwell (R-District 61) resurrected the bill in the House Common Education Committee.
The only significant difference is that where the original version specified, "The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects," the new version specifies, "the Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics and physics can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on some subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
On February 21, 2012, just a day after HB 1551 was resurrected, the House Common Education Committee voted 9-7 to accept it, hearing no testimony from the public. One amendment, providing, "Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt students from learning, understanding, and being tested on curriculum as prescribed by state and local education standards," was accepted; while that language was not present in the original version of HB 1551, it was added by amendment by the House Common Education Committee in 2011 before the bill was rejected, suggesting that Blackwell was working from the original rather than the amended version of Kern's bill. The bill will now presumably proceed to the House of Representatives for a floor vote; it will have to be accepted by the House by March 15, 2012, in order to proceed to the Senate.
In its current incarnation, HB 1551 differs only slightly from Oklahoma's Senate Bill 320 from 2009, which a member of the Senate Education Committee described to the Tulsa World (February 17, 2009) as one of the worst bills that he had ever seen. In its critique (PDF) of SB 320, Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education argued, "Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy is just plain dishonest ... Evolution as a process is supported by an enormous and continually growing body of evidence. Evolutionary theory has advanced substantially since Darwin's time and, despite 150 years of direct research, no evidence in conflict with evolution has ever been found." With respect to the supposed "weaknesses" of evolution, OESE added, "they are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution."
Quote from: swake on February 21, 2012, 02:31:53 PM
The Republican war on science and honesty continues....
http://ncse.com/news/2012/02/second-oklahoma-bill-attacks-evolution-climate-change-007221
A bill in Oklahoma that would, if enacted, encourage teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution" and "global warming" is back from the dead. Entitled the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act," House Bill 1551 was introduced in the Oklahoma House of Representatives in 2011 by Sally Kern (R-District 84), a persistent sponsor of antievolution legislation in the Sooner State, and referred to the House Common Education Committee. It was rejected there on February 22, 2011, on a 7-9 vote. But, as The Oklahoman (February 23, 2011) reported, the vote was not final, since a sponsor "could ask the committee to bring it up again this session or next year." And indeed, on February 20, 2012, Gus Blackwell (R-District 61) resurrected the bill in the House Common Education Committee.
The only significant difference is that where the original version specified, "The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects," the new version specifies, "the Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics and physics can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on some subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
On February 21, 2012, just a day after HB 1551 was resurrected, the House Common Education Committee voted 9-7 to accept it, hearing no testimony from the public. One amendment, providing, "Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt students from learning, understanding, and being tested on curriculum as prescribed by state and local education standards," was accepted; while that language was not present in the original version of HB 1551, it was added by amendment by the House Common Education Committee in 2011 before the bill was rejected, suggesting that Blackwell was working from the original rather than the amended version of Kern's bill. The bill will now presumably proceed to the House of Representatives for a floor vote; it will have to be accepted by the House by March 15, 2012, in order to proceed to the Senate.
In its current incarnation, HB 1551 differs only slightly from Oklahoma's Senate Bill 320 from 2009, which a member of the Senate Education Committee described to the Tulsa World (February 17, 2009) as one of the worst bills that he had ever seen. In its critique (PDF) of SB 320, Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education argued, "Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy is just plain dishonest ... Evolution as a process is supported by an enormous and continually growing body of evidence. Evolutionary theory has advanced substantially since Darwin's time and, despite 150 years of direct research, no evidence in conflict with evolution has ever been found." With respect to the supposed "weaknesses" of evolution, OESE added, "they are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution."
Must be something in the water at the State Capitol....
Quote from: Hoss on February 21, 2012, 02:33:59 PM
Must be something in the water at the State Capitol....
...lack of proper education, exodus of intelligent people to other states, cases of the crazies, lobbies, wild misunderstandings of reality, placement of convenience for seperation of church and state...
Brought to you by the same people that think this is of utmost importance........
http://www.newson6.com/story/16977852/oklahoma-house-bill-delays-legal-drinking-on-21st-birthday?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.newson6.com/story/16977852/oklahoma-house-bill-delays-legal-drinking-on-21st-birthday?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
My God we have elected a mass of mouth breathing morons as state legislators. If aliens were to attack and blow up the state capital Independence Day style the average IQ of this state would go up 15 points.
Please note: In the interest of not confusing any good people from state government that might read this and want to enact a new law protecting themselves from aliens, this post is satire. The aliens are the flying saucer kind and the term "alien" does not refer to anyone human. No, the flying saucer aliens are NOT real, I am referencing a science fiction movie (please note the word "fiction") and even if these aliens were real it's unlikely that any law you might propose would stop them at the border. No, not even a fence. You may now resume drooling.
Quote from: swake on February 21, 2012, 03:31:59 PM
My God we have elected a mass of mouth breathing morons as state legislators. If aliens were to attack and blow up the state capital Independence Day style the average IQ of this state would go up 15 points.
Please note: In the interest of not confusing any good people from state government that might read this and want to enact a new law protecting themselves from aliens, this post is satire. The aliens are the flying saucer kind and the term "alien" does not refer to anyone human. No, the flying saucer aliens are NOT real, I am referencing a science fiction movie (please note the word "fiction") and even if these aliens were real it's unlikely that any law you might propose would stop them at the border. No, not even a fence. You may now resume drooling.
1. Oh great, now they're all running around the capital building lighting themselves on fire in fear or tripping over the cones meant to protect them from falling up those busted stairs.
2. Well done on your post. I tittered.
So how many of the people on this panel have science backgrounds? Leave science class alone, if you want to teach the "alternatives" hire a few new humanities teachers to teach "creationism."
Problem solved, no diluting science class and one can learn the alternative if they so chose.
Quote from: Townsend on February 21, 2012, 03:37:48 PM
1. Oh great, now they're all running around the capital building lighting themselves on fire in fear or tripping over the cones meant to protect them from falling up those busted stairs.
2. Well done on your post. I tittered.
Laughing hysterically now between you and awake.
This legislation does nothing, it only
encourages teachers. But this along with other statement legislation tells me our legislature doesn't have near enough to do. Let's just send these idiots home to their plows. Permanently.
Quote from: godboko71 on February 21, 2012, 03:49:43 PM
So how many of the people on this panel have science backgrounds? Leave science class alone, if you want to teach the "alternatives" hire a few new humanities teachers to teach "creationism."
Problem solved, no diluting science class and one can learn the alternative if they so chose.
Where do you think all the "Liberal Arts" majors find work?
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 21, 2012, 03:57:16 PM
Where do you think all the "Liberal Arts" majors find work?
Hey!
I'm a liberal arts major! And I push electrons around for a living.
i am starting to believe that Idiocracy is beginning to happen and the oklahoma state capital is ground zero.
just in case you haven't seen the movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)
Quote from: Ed W on February 21, 2012, 05:09:35 PM
Hey! I'm a liberal arts major! And I push electrons around for a living.
You are supposed to pull them. Ever try to push (cooked) spaghetti?
;D
And since we went there....
We now must go here....
http://www.venganza.org/
Oklahoma Republicans seem to believe "small government" means "just big enough to force my religious beliefs on others." What scientific facts to disregard. Who is having sex with who. What religious monuments to erect where. What I can do with my sperm and what my wife can do to prevent pregnancy.
Small government doesn't just mean spend less...
If Knut were still alive:
(http://media.nscdn.com/uploads/cache/images/1238611905-761116-600x452-1238230431knut_facepalm.JPG)
I see the RR in our legislature have no more compunction about teaching lies to our young people than they do about lying to women with high-risk pregnancies about the health of their unborn. (That is the RELIGIOUS Right, isn't it? hmmm...)
Quote from: LocalGirl on February 22, 2012, 09:58:03 PM
I see the RR in our legislature have no more compunction about teaching lies to our young people than they do about lying to women with high-risk pregnancies about the health of their unborn. (That is the RELIGIOUS Right, isn't it? hmmm...)
Or the doublespeak version...
Not really religious. And definitely not right - as in correct.
Quote from: Ed W on February 21, 2012, 05:09:35 PM
Hey! I'm a liberal arts major! And I push electrons around for a living.
Was just generalizng. Just tell me you didn't major in dead languages of some lost trib on a pacific island that only lasted 100 years, and has been proven that they have not had any affect on the planet in 30,000 years.
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 24, 2012, 05:27:56 PM
Was just generalizng. Just tell me you didn't major in dead languages of some lost trib on a pacific island that only lasted 100 years, and has been proven that they have not had any affect on the planet in 30,000 years.
Nope. Despite the continuing nightmares of being forced to re-take my Spanish class, I graduated with a BA in psychology. I worked in a child psychiatric hospital for about four years, until I realized it was not how I wanted to spend the rest of my life. Electrons are much easier to deal with, especially when you remember there's an 'off' switch.
In reference to the humanities: the OSU philosophy department (specifically doran decker, our awesome department head) offers a great creation/evolution class. While the class is even handed, takes and critically examines creationist claims (including reading Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, the flagship ID book), anyone who is willing to honestly evaluate the two sets of arguments come down on the evolution side. When I took the course as an undergrad, it was like a bootcamp for taking down creationist arguments. Now that I'm poised to finish grad school and hopefully will be teaching at TCC and OSU Tulsa. This is a course that I would love to teach.
Quote from: jacobi on February 25, 2012, 08:49:13 AM
In reference to the humanities: the OSU philosophy department (specifically doran decker, our awesome department head) offers a great creation/evolution class. While the class is even handed, takes and critically examines creationist claims (including reading Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, the flagship ID book), anyone who is willing to honestly evaluate the two sets of arguments come down on the evolution side. When I took the course as an undergrad, it was like a bootcamp for taking down creationist arguments. Now that I'm poised to finish grad school and hopefully will be teaching at TCC and OSU Tulsa. This is a course that I would love to teach.
And that is why Santorum doesn't want young impressionable minds to go to college (without the commitment to creationism that would turn the tables on this obviously liberal anti-religion indoctrination).
Too bad Jacobi. Your indoctrination into logical thinking has been a success.
Quote from: jacobi on February 25, 2012, 08:49:13 AM
In reference to the humanities: the OSU philosophy department (specifically doran decker, our awesome department head) offers a great creation/evolution class. While the class is even handed, takes and critically examines creationist claims (including reading Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, the flagship ID book), anyone who is willing to honestly evaluate the two sets of arguments come down on the evolution side. When I took the course as an undergrad, it was like a bootcamp for taking down creationist arguments. Now that I'm poised to finish grad school and hopefully will be teaching at TCC and OSU Tulsa. This is a course that I would love to teach.
So I guess that class qualifies you to polish the buckle on the bible belt over Oklahoma.
I've got a strong commitment to improve my hometown. Just because is for all intents and purposes futile doesn't mean it isn't right or worth doing. I'm hoping that the department clears me to teach the course.
Quote from: jacobi on February 25, 2012, 01:15:57 PM
I've got a strong commitment to improve my hometown. Just because is for all intents and purposes futile doesn't mean it isn't right or worth doing. I'm hoping that the department clears me to teach the course.
So if God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh, how long are God's days?
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 25, 2012, 01:49:00 PM
So if God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh, how long are God's days?
From what I hear tell. Before those particular stories of the Bible were ever written, they were originally spoken poetry. Perhaps even sung and with the sound of drumbeats and rhythmic meter, around a campfire under the stars. Poetry at its best contains deep truths, truths that are gained not on a simple, literal level, but are only gained when you understand the figurative meaning contained within and between the rich, multifaceted interplay of the words. And, like "the day of harvest" is not really one day but a period of time, so likely "and on the first day" was also meant to be a period of time.
Quote from: TheArtist on February 25, 2012, 02:37:56 PM
From what I hear tell. Before those particular stories were ever written, they were originally spoken poetry. Perhaps even sung and with the sound of drumbeats and rhythmic meter, around a campfire under the stars. Poetry as we all know can often contain deep truths, truths that can not be gained through a simple literal reading but through the rich multifaceted layers of figurative meaning. And, like "the day of harvest" is not really one day but a period of time, so likely "and on the first day" was also meant to be a period of time.
Thank you William, that is the first time in I don't know how many times I have asked that question I have gotten an answer other than "Well that's what the bible says and that's what counts" or just an utter look of disgust that I would even ask the question.
William you are correct. The creation story found in genisis was originally poetry. The Greeks had their own : theogeny. I'm also a big believer in the idea of insight and meaning coming from art, in this case poetry.
Our State government is a reflection of our state citizenry. Just today, I was in a check out stand at a popular grocery store when the lady in front of me picked up a risque magazine and turned it around to hide the cover even though she said it was to display the back cover recipe. As she finished paying for her 12 items, we were in the ten items or less check out lane, I picked up the magazine and faced it forward into it's intended positioning. The lady told the check out person she wanted to wait for her child at which point I stated she does not have to shop here if she doesn't appreciate an open society and she doesn't have to look at the magazine cover. She proceeded to turn the magazine over to hide this beautiful practically naked model from my view. I then noticed she left without a child. Not only did she lie but she was devious in her attempt to gain control and "win" while being obstinate about her values. Sound familiar?
It dawns on me that this election will give us a chance to judge just how many crazy people there are in any given state, based on the numbers and percentage who vote for Santorum. Just yesterday, he said the main reason Obama wants more people to go to college is so they can be indoctrinated. Does this guy ever say anything that doesnt sound like it came from the mouth of an Ayatollah?
Anyway, Nate Silver's latest pol shows Santorum with a 97% chance of carrying Oklahoma. He's got 47% compared to 23% for Newt. In fact I think you can combine those two, for a crazy index of 70%.
Yeah but I saw an estimate that sauid that a solid 34% of the state will vote obama. I'll believe it when I see it, but we'll see in November. My bigger concern is local. There are some serious turkeys down in okc.
Quote from: jacobi on February 25, 2012, 04:01:05 PM
Yeah but I saw an estimate that sauid that a solid 34% of the state will vote obama. I'll believe it when I see it, but we'll see in November. My bigger concern is local. There are some serious turkeys down in okc.
Yes, but they are a product of our fellow Okies..... funny how many can identify the problem in OKC but fail to change the situation when confronted by the ballot. It's like a bunch of zombie church going voters getting their crazy ways. ;)
I hear you T. I once parked my car in a Broken Arrow strip center lot while I made a sales call on one of the retailers. Left the doors unlocked and the window open cause BA was pretty safe back then. When I came back someone had entered my car. Not to steal but to change the radio station to the local religious station. Bizarre. We lead the nation in crazy.
Obama garnered about 31% last election iirc. To jump to 34 is not a big deal, solid or not.
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 25, 2012, 01:49:00 PM
So if God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh, how long are God's days?
When I was a kid, I was told each of God's days during Creation was 7000 of our present years. I have no idea where that number came from.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 25, 2012, 05:51:58 PM
I hear you T. I once parked my car in a Broken Arrow strip center lot while I made a sales call on one of the retailers. Left the doors unlocked and the window open cause BA was pretty safe back then. When I came back someone had entered my car. Not to steal but to change the radio station to the local religious station. Bizarre. We lead the nation in crazy.
Obama garnered about 31% last election iirc. To jump to 34 is not a big deal, solid or not.
That happened to me at Nelson Nissan. I called Bobby to complain and they put me on hold where I was forced to listen to a proselytizer.
Bobby knows better now...
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 25, 2012, 06:28:16 PM
When I was a kid, I was told each of God's days during Creation was 7000 of our present years. I have no idea where that number came from.
An active imagination just like most stories.
Quote from: Townsend on February 27, 2012, 11:27:00 AM
An active imagination just like most stories.
Its a cop out. Why would God stoop to David Blaine type tricks to invent the universe (well specifically the heavens and the earth since everything revolves around the earth).
Quote from: carltonplace on February 27, 2012, 01:08:46 PM
Its a cop out. Why would God stoop to David Blaine type tricks to invent the universe (well specifically the heavens and the earth since everything revolves around the earth).
I thought everything revolved around David Hasselhoff. Does it not?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 27, 2012, 01:10:15 PM
I thought everything revolved around David Hasselhoff. Does it not?
That probably explains why we haven't heard from David Blaine in awhile, he disapeared somewhere in David Hasselhoff.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 27, 2012, 01:10:15 PM
I thought everything revolved around David Hasselhoff. Does it not?
Careful, you shouldn't hassel the Hoff. He may call you while he's drunk off his donkey trying to eat a cheeseburger.
There three subject involved with the school teaching the Darwin theory, the books of the Moses and the ministry of Jesus.
The Israelites (Hebrews) is a story told to confirm the origin of their race which is a book within its self. Jesus has the cloud hanging over his head because the Cult of Israelites that was changing gold with the Romans in the temple and plead for his execution. This group did not accept Jesus as their savior and even to this day refuses to accept him; which should be told in a single book. Then there is Darwin's theory composed of extensive world travel gathering information on evolution. He has presented evolution as a fact. The church has conceded that evolution has possibly had its hand in developing the present generations.
It is hard to visualize masses of all the universes that we can see in the night sky and not by limitation of the mind's capacity be able to establish space without boundaries.
We continue to cheat the children if we don't teach the theory in public schools.
Quote from: shadows on February 28, 2012, 09:30:07 PM
There three subject involved with the school teaching the Darwin theory, the books of the Moses and the ministry of Jesus.
The Israelites (Hebrews) is a story told to confirm the origin of their race which is a book within its self. Jesus has the cloud hanging over his head because the Cult of Israelites that was changing gold with the Romans in the temple and plead for his execution. This group did not accept Jesus as their savior and even to this day refuses to accept him; which should be told in a single book. Then there is Darwin's theory composed of extensive world travel gathering information on evolution. He has presented evolution as a fact. The church has conceded that evolution has possibly had its hand in developing the present generations.
It is hard to visualize masses of all the universes that we can see in the night sky and not by limitation of the mind's capacity be able to establish space without boundaries.
We continue to cheat the children if we don't teach the theory in public schools.
He is here all week folks. Don't forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses and drive safely. Good night.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 29, 2012, 07:33:42 AM
He is here all week folks. Don't forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses and drive safely. Good night.
"Just don't tip them over...they hate that".
Sorry, couldn't resist it.
Quote from: shadows on February 28, 2012, 09:30:07 PM
We continue to cheat the children if we don't teach the theory in public schools.
Teach the biblical theory of creationism or the scientific theory of evolution?
If we are teaching the Judeo-Christian creation myth (God has always been, one day he decided to make the earth, he did in 6 days and took one off, in the process he created people, got mad at them and punished them for thousands of years but promised to some day send someone to make it better, Christians then say he proved how much he loved them by creating a son, who is a different person than God but is also the same God as well as being a magic spirit, who came to earth and was tortured and murdered by humans - so now god can love people again if we do what he tells us) - can we teach some other creation myths? I'm no expert, but there are some other creation myths we should teach. Remember, Genesis is as much a myth to other people as their creation story is a myth to you:
Greek - Mother God created the sky to cover herself and the Titans to care for her and then the Titans kind of started their own thing until Zeus kicked their butts and spawned the Olympians.
Babylonian - two super gods had kids, their kids were loud and pissed them off, so they tried to kill their kids, one kid killed his mother and cut her in two... half formed the earth and half formed the heavens.
Egyptian - in a swirling mass of whatever a god willed its genderless self into being - and spat out other gods for company. Some god went missing, they were found, super god cried for joy... man came from the tears of super god.
Hawai'ian – goddess Pele was wondering the earth and smelled fire. She wanted to move into the volcano she found but some other god was there. They got in a fight and chucked fireballs at each other – creating land. Pele won and still occupies the volcanoes. The vanquished god lives in caves and tunnels underground.
Hindu – a giant 1000 headed god enveloped the Earth, was sacrificed by other gods, and his body parts created everything on the earth.
Japan - the gods created a man and a woman, they created islands by having the man stick his magic spear into the soft spots of the earth and when he pulled it out it shot out salty substance, they lived on the island, they didn't listen to the gods and were punished, they struggle to make it right – kinda failed, went into the gods realm and fled – thereby dividing god from man forever.
Chinese - a cosmic egg floated for eons, eventually a being was spawned and the egg broke - the yoke fell to earth, the white formed the heavens.
Zoroastrian - a holy mountain was possessed by a spirit, the first animal [a white bull] was killed by the evil spirit, the dead bulls soul went to heaven [the moon] and was purified and came back to form many animals including the first man... who was killed by the evil spirit. It took 40 years but his soul was purified by the sun and he came back as a rhubarb plant, which split into the first mortal humans. Who were tricked into worshipping the evil spirit. They had kids and then ate them (because the evil spirit told them to kill their kids as a test). Then they had twins - and from those two people, who rejected the false god and worshipped the one true God, came all of humanity (and the Jews idea of worshipping one God)
Norse/Oden myth - in a fire world lived some gods, a magic bull licked other gods into being, they had a kid, who killed an older god - the dead body formed the earth.
New ones are invented all of the time:
Scientology – the earth existed as a super happy place with people when it got caught up in an intergalactic war with super villain Xeno. He stuffed bad guys in a volcano in Hawaii and blew them up with atomic weapons. The evil spirits of these dead aliens attached themselves to people and ruined paradise. You have to pay scientologists to get rid of them.
Pastafarian – the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe exactly as it appears today billions of years ago. All evidence of evolution, creation, or anything deviating from this static view is simply the Monster's holy Noodly Appendage messing with the data for reasons beyond our carb fueled minds.
I'm not a scholar on these things, but they are all interesting. And there is about as much evidence supporting any one of these stories as there is supporting any other. Religion is not science and science is not religion. Religion is belief in the supernatural/magic/holy without proof, based on faith. Science is the abject study of things based only on proof. Religions die if proved wrong. Science grows by proving things wrong.
One belongs in a classroom, one does not. Please keep your religion out of my classrooms and I promise not to insist we teach science in your church.
No society has existed since the naked ape stood up on his hind legs that has not worshiped a god. The Egyptian in the recording of their history, which some scholars has associated them as a spin-off of ancient India, planned for their journey across the skies. These cultures of the past have played a role that has been in parallel in the advancing of sciences of which cannot be overlooked in the quest for knowledge. Religion and science are necessary and they should coexist with each other to produce a balanced and uniform society in order for the children of today to cope with the events of the morrow. The building of a brick wall between the two balancing functions by the "You stay in your yard and I'll stay in mine" does no more than create an unbalanced child that is to rule in the morrow..
Quote from: shadows on February 29, 2012, 07:40:13 PM
No society has existed since the naked ape stood up on his hind legs that has not worshiped a god. The Egyptian in the recording of their history, which some scholars has associated them as a spin-off of ancient India, planned for their journey across the skies. These cultures of the past have played a role that has been in parallel in the advancing of sciences of which cannot be overlooked in the quest for knowledge. Religion and science are necessary and they should coexist with each other to produce a balanced and uniform society in order for the children of today to cope with the events of the morrow. The building of a brick wall between the two balancing functions by the "You stay in your yard and I'll stay in mine" does no more than create an unbalanced child that is to rule in the morrow..
Decoder ring out...
You know about the Red Hat society and they didn't worship and play naked with apes, but did spin their recordings of "Walk like an Egyption" and songs from the band Journey. We passed some rolls in science class and had a quiz. In gym class I relied on prayer and gravity to do the balance beam and would have done better if I had worn my uniform. I am off to cope with kids building walls around the yard used bone marrow.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 29, 2012, 10:46:52 PM
Decoder ring out...
I relied on prayer and gravity to do the balance beam and would have done better if I had worn my uniform. I am off to cope with kids building walls around the yard used bone marrow.
,,,,,,,,,,,,
You use the phenomenon of gravity of which the hairless ape is not able to define where ever object on this planet is attached by. Still you want to rely on the assumption that the creation of such is by a supernatural person and not the refilling of the void of a black hole left in the universe by the explosion of hydrogen in the big bang theory that created our sun and planets.
Darwin’s theory is based on observation and research but the answers lie beyond
Understanding and taxes the hairless ape’s mind. If this be true the hydrogen burning that is creating our sun will burn out and the natives of ancient time who worshiped the sun as giver of life was right. Darwin’s theory is an abstract theory and should be taught in the public schools as possible foundation of learning of our existence.
,
What do you have against apes?
You sir, are Apist. I won't justify any further response to a man like you.
Now he's just screwing with you Michael ;)
Good one Shadows!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 01, 2012, 03:45:37 PM
What do you have against apes?
You sir, are Apist. I won't justify any further response to a man like you.
......
I do not have a vendetta against the hairless ape. I see them, hear them, read their comment, analyze their opinion and try to arrive at a equable conclusion.
Apparently Shadows does live in some other "reality" or world that I have neither seen nor heard of. What are these "hairless apes" he speaks of? Sometimes I have heard the ill informed say that Darwin said, man evolved from apes. He never did. He said that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. One must wonder about the veracity of someones arguments on a subject when they can't even seem to get the most basic tenets right.
Quote from: TheArtist on March 02, 2012, 08:15:03 AM
Apparently Shadows does live in some other "reality" or world that I have neither seen nor heard of. What are these "hairless apes" he speaks of? Sometimes I have heard the ill informed say that Darwin said, man evolved from apes. He never did. He said that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. One must wonder about the veracity of someones arguments on a subject when they can't even seem to get the most basic tenets right.
Check "Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Human Evolution"
Quote from: shadows on March 02, 2012, 01:37:06 PM
Check "Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Human Evolution"
That's an article written by someone other than Darwin.
Thomas Huxley posited that "man descended from apes" or "evolved from within apes" Darwin did not, and did not write that in "The Descent of Man" either.
Quote from: Townsend on March 02, 2012, 01:51:37 PM
That's an article written by someone other than Darwin.
..
True; it points out Darwin's did associate evolution of man from the ape and the loss of hair first by the female. Read the whole article.
The question in debate is "should such a scientific proven study be taught in public schools when the church believes there is merit in it".
Quote from: shadows on March 02, 2012, 02:44:54 PM
..
True; it points out Darwin's did associate evolution of man from the ape and the loss of hair first by the female. Read the whole article.
The question in debate is "should such a scientific proven study be taught in public schools when the church believes there is merit in it".
You must be reading a different article than I did.
Please post a link to the article.
Quote from: shadows on March 02, 2012, 02:44:54 PM
..
True; it points out Darwin's did associate evolution of man from the ape and the loss of hair first by the female. Read the whole article.
The question in debate is "should such a scientific proven study be taught in public schools when the church believes there is merit in it".
What study?
Why should it matter what the group is, church or not? Is belief and simple merit all thats required? We would have an infinity of "items" to teach if that were the standard.
Quote from: Townsend on March 02, 2012, 02:47:49 PM
You must be reading a different article than I did.
Please post a link to the article.
.,,
Click in your search engine “Darwin’s Theory” and you can follow it with at least six hours of reading.
Quote from: shadows on March 02, 2012, 03:09:11 PM
.
Click in your search engine "Darwin's Theory" and you can follow it with at least six hours of reading.
I'd like to see the article you've got though. Which one, specifically, are you reading to post that Darwin stated what you say he stated?
Quote from: Townsend on March 02, 2012, 03:11:54 PM
I'd like to see the article you've got though. Which one, specifically, are you reading to post that Darwin stated what you say he stated?
..
Among the white pages that have been written (1,770,000 articles published with a large percentage published on internet) it is beyond the capacity of the human mind to remember which one's but I think it was by the search engine that selected the articles.
If you read them you will arrive at the conclusion that the ape involved from man who grew hair over his body as he moved out of Africa to the colder climates.
On the question Darwin's Theory created by years of world studdies would it not be proper to call it a study?
Quote from: shadows on March 02, 2012, 05:08:15 PM
If you read them you will arrive at the conclusion that the ape involved from man who grew hair over his body as he moved out of Africa to the colder climates.
Which totally explains why the hairy apes are mostly found in Africa (warm) and naked apes are found in colder climates. The mankind that grew hair stayed in the colder climates lost most of their hair and had to rely on clothes and cultivate food while the hairy apes moved back to Africa and dined on easy to get food. I'm not sure which was more intelligent.
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 02, 2012, 05:27:14 PM
Which totally explains why the hairy apes are mostly found in Africa (warm) and naked apes are found in colder climates. The mankind that grew hair stayed in the colder climates lost most of their hair and had to rely on clothes and cultivate food while the hairy apes moved back to Africa and dined on easy to get food. I'm not sure which was more intelligent.
...

You got it right man. I stood on the remains of the ice age under the volcano ash at Brants (?) NM. I am sure if one reads Africa history they have had an ice age also. Evolution spans centuries. If we are confused just think how confused the ape is having to re-grow hair to evolve.
Shadows: "crazy talk"
Everyone else: "Citation needed"
Shadows: "The internets"
Everyone else: "Where on the internets"
Shadows: "You can find it in 6 hours if you look"
On that basis... I read fourteen articles on the interwebs that said you are totally wrong. I can't find the citation, but they were really good sources and there are more of them than yours. I win at the internets.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 03, 2012, 07:36:04 PM
Shadows: "crazy talk"
Everyone else: "Citation needed"
Shadows: "The internets"
Everyone else: "Where on the internets"
Shadows: "You can find it in 6 hours if you look"
On that basis... I read fourteen articles on the interwebs that said you are totally wrong. I can't find the citation, but they were really good sources and there are more of them than yours. I win at the internets.
+1
I'm betting this was mainstream until the mutation of less hair started to gain adherents - hairless being a kinky kind of thing for the standards and mores of the day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis
We acclaim we are the creation of a superficial person who spent 7000 years preparing a place for our ancestors then he created a possible 3,000,000,000 other solar systems. That would be 3,000,000,000 X 7,000 which would equal; my computer won't accept that equation. Then he built a garden and put our ancestors in and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. They produced I believe 7 boys. On of the children slew his brother and was ban from the garden into the land where he knew his wife. (Same sex marriage?) Now this was all placed in space that has no boundaries.
For 20 centuries this story has been taught in schools. Churches have established universities in order to teach it. Is it not logic to teach a story that is based on 20 years of studding of a doctor of a possibly another source of our existence.
Jesus told the disciples in the garden if they had no sword sell their garment and buy one.
This controversy of evolution and religion is bursting out again where next we will be buying swords because Ezekiel in the sixth century BC wrote of measuring heaven and by his dimensions it sure is going to be crowded.
Quote from: shadows on March 03, 2012, 10:24:28 PM
We acclaim we are the creation of a superficial person who spent 7000 years preparing a place for our ancestors then he created a possible 3,000,000,000 other solar systems. That would be 3,000,000,000 X 7,000 which would equal; my computer won't accept that equation. Then he built a garden and put our ancestors in and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. They produced I believe 7 boys. On of the children slew his brother and was ban from the garden into the land where he knew his wife. (Same sex marriage?) Now this was all placed in space that has no boundaries.
For 20 centuries this story has been taught in schools. Churches have established universities in order to teach it. Is it not logic to teach a story that is based on 20 years of studding of a doctor of a possibly another source of our existence.
Jesus told the disciples in the garden if they had no sword sell their garment and buy one.
This controversy of evolution and religion is bursting out again where next we will be buying swords because Ezekiel in the sixth century BC wrote of measuring heaven and by his dimensions it sure is going to be crowded.
Wow shadows. I gotta party with you dude.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/04/oklahoma_s_sharia_slayer_endorses_rick_santorum.html?wpisrc=twitter_socialflow (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/04/oklahoma_s_sharia_slayer_endorses_rick_santorum.html?wpisrc=twitter_socialflow)
Oklahoma's Sharia-Slayer Endorses Rick Santorum
QuoteIn the inbox tonight: A list of Rick Santorum's latest endorsements from Oklahoma. High up the list is a nod from Rep. Sally Kern. Come on, you remember Sally Kern! Last year, during a stop in the state, I talked to Kern about her work to pre-emptively ban sharia law.
"When I see things that are happening that I think will weaken our American way of life, I don't like that," she says. "I don't have a problem with people coming over here—why wouldn't people want to come to America, the greatest nation in the world where you have the most opportunities and freedoms? Why wouldn't they want to come over here? But if they're going to come over here, let them become Americans. If they want to hold on to their own cultures, then why—and I hope I don't get in trouble here—why not live in their own countries?"
This was not in the top 50 percentile of controversial things Kern has done or said.
Surely she knows we wouldn't be enjoying authentic Pizza, Mexican Food, Sushi, Thai or a host of other culture's foods and styles had we required that they leave their culture at the shoreline? Right? Or maybe she thinks everyone should wear jeans, eat cheeseburgers and apple pie.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 05, 2012, 11:11:30 AM
Surely she knows we wouldn't be enjoying authentic Pizza, Mexican Food, Sushi, Thai or a host of other culture's foods and styles had we required that they leave their culture at the shoreline? Right? Or maybe she thinks everyone should wear jeans, eat cheeseburgers and apple pie.
No, she's mentally deficient.
Thanks to people like her, Oklahoma won't even pick the correct loser for president.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on February 29, 2012, 06:05:58 PM
Pastafarian – the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe exactly as it appears today billions of years ago. All evidence of evolution, creation, or anything deviating from this static view is simply the Monster's holy Noodly Appendage messing with the data for reasons beyond our carb fueled minds.
Just to point out, the FSM was a hyperbole in a letter to the Kansas Board of Education to point out a problem with including creationism in the class room.
Shadows, if you want to understand Darwin's theory, try reading Darwin, not everyone else, particularly
On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. You can find all of his works at http://darwin-online.org.uk/ (hey, looky, a link). In the theory man did not evolve from ape, nor did ape evolve from man. Both evolved from a common ancestor. And no, religion is not required in a society, the growing number of Atheists show that.
Thanks for the information custosnox
That is a very informative posting on the Internet that should be taught in the public schools as Darwin's years of research should not be brushed aside. The use of "COMMON ANCESTOR" leaves open many more questions that will remain unanswered. As he points out there is much similarity in the embryos as they develop after conception. He leaves to thought of what determines the track the embryo will take to become a part of a specific species within the genetics spiral.
Tennessee's still in the party with us...
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/13/150577766/war-of-the-worlds-when-science-politics-collide?sc=fb&cc=fp (http://www.npr.org/2012/04/13/150577766/war-of-the-worlds-when-science-politics-collide?sc=fb&cc=fp)
QuoteRoger Cone is a microbiologist, not a politician. He struggles with a basic truth: For all the scientific acceptance of evolution, many Americans simply don't believe it is factually accurate.
And when Tennessee lawmakers passed a measure allowing teachers to question accepted theories on evolution and climate change in the classroom, Cone acted. He and two other scientists wrote an op-ed in The Tennessean last month opposing the bill, which he says "started out as a backdoor attempt to get creationism, or 'intelligent design,' taught in the schools." He fears it will be another black eye for Tennessee — a throwback to the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial," when teacher John T. Scopes was put on trial for lecturing on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
The rest of the article is worth reading.
Fwiw, the church of the flying spaghetti monster is an established religion with nonprofit status and followers. It is no less legitimate than any other religion. Do its believers REALLY believe the teachings? Hard to say, but we don't require Christians to answer if they really believe a half man half god half ghost who is the god and also the son of god and the son of a virgin and had magical powers who was killed by his father/god in order to allow those that worship him well enough for not be burned.
The point is the government shouldn't choose which beliefs are crazy and avoid teaching religion in any form, even if that form is the majority.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 17, 2012, 09:03:03 PM
Fwiw, the church of the flying spaghetti monster is an established religion with nonprofit status and followers. It is no less legitimate than any other religion. Do its believers REALLY believe the teachings? Hard to say, but we don't require Christians to answer if they really believe a half man half god half ghost who is the god and also the son of god and the son of a virgin and had magical powers who was killed by his father/god in order to allow those that worship him well enough for not be burned.
The point is the government shouldn't choose which beliefs are crazy and avoid teaching religion in any form, even if that form is the majority.
Yawn. Another "keep religion out of government by insulting/bashing Christians" post. My gosh, if only my wife and I were as smart, enlightened, and sophisticated as folks like you. Luckily, I have this bumper sticker to keep me grounded.
(http://rlv.zcache.com/knuckle_dragger_bumper_sticker-p128658464387777127z7b7j_210.jpg)
Who was bashing? Sensitive much?
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2012, 12:47:16 AM
Who was bashing? Sensitive much?
Sorry, I didn't realize you answered for CF. I'll make a note for next time. ::)
Quote from: guido911 on April 18, 2012, 12:59:42 AM
Sorry, I didn't realize you answered for CF. I'll make a note for next time. ::)
Am I not allowed to comment on other comments here? I thought this was an open forum. :-*
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2012, 01:01:42 AM
Am I not allowed to comment on other comments here?
No, everyone else is but you are not.
;D
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 17, 2012, 09:03:03 PM
Fwiw, the church of the flying spaghetti monster is an established religion with nonprofit status and followers.
The Gospel begins with the creation of the universe by an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster. On the first day, the Flying Spaghetti Monster separated the water from the heavens; on the second, because He could not tread water for long and had grown tired of flying, He created the land—complemented by a beer volcano. Satisfied, the Flying Spaghetti Monster overindulged in beer from the beer volcano and woke up hungover. Between drunken nights and clumsy afternoons, the Flying Spaghetti Monster produced seas and land (for a second time, accidentally, because he forgot that he created it the day before) along with Heaven and a midget, which he named Man. Man and an equally short woman lived happily in the Olive Garden of Eden for some time until the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused a global flood in a cooking accident.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 18, 2012, 08:33:43 AM
The Gospel begins with the creation of the universe by an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster. On the first day, the Flying Spaghetti Monster separated the water from the heavens; on the second, because He could not tread water for long and had grown tired of flying, He created the land—complemented by a beer volcano. Satisfied, the Flying Spaghetti Monster overindulged in beer from the beer volcano and woke up hungover. Between drunken nights and clumsy afternoons, the Flying Spaghetti Monster produced seas and land (for a second time, accidentally, because he forgot that he created it the day before) along with Heaven and a midget, which he named Man. Man and an equally short woman lived happily in the Olive Garden of Eden for some time until the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused a global flood in a cooking accident.
I believe he has touched us with his noodly appendage.
(http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/FSM_tornado.jpg)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 18, 2012, 08:33:43 AM
The Gospel begins with the creation of the universe by an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster. On the first day, the Flying Spaghetti Monster separated the water from the heavens; on the second, because He could not tread water for long and had grown tired of flying, He created the land—complemented by a beer volcano. Satisfied, the Flying Spaghetti Monster overindulged in beer from the beer volcano and woke up hungover. Between drunken nights and clumsy afternoons, the Flying Spaghetti Monster produced seas and land (for a second time, accidentally, because he forgot that he created it the day before) along with Heaven and a midget, which he named Man. Man and an equally short woman lived happily in the Olive Garden of Eden for some time until the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused a global flood in a cooking accident.
I made spaghetti at home last night for dinner! Yay, toast - oops, different song!
Guido,
First, your post had no point. You merely pointed out that you thought it was another post supporting the seperation of church and state by bashing Christians. You failed to address the central point: we do not require "belief" litmus tests for Christians, so doing so to another's claimed belief is a double standard.
Second, I did no bashing at all. You may not like how I flippantly summarized the main tenants of your religion, but how is that bashing? Correct my interpretation if you want, my point still stands:
A government should not decide whose religi6ous beliefs are worthy of being taught to children. Either government doesn't teach religion... or it teaches all the religions anyone brings forward.
Hollow be that colander.
I am a frisbee-tarian. I believe when you die you soul lands on the roof and stays there until a high wind.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 20, 2012, 02:03:42 PM
I am a frisbee-tarian. I believe when you die you soul lands on the roof and stays there until a high wind.
If you were a bad frisbee-tarian, you are given to a dog. Chomp, chomp.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 20, 2012, 02:03:42 PM
I am a frisbee-tarian. I believe when you die you soul lands on the roof and stays there until a high wind.
You should give credit for that quote to George Carlin.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 18, 2012, 11:16:02 AM
I made spaghetti at home last night for dinner! Yay, toast - oops, different song!
I hope you were in full pirate regalia, arggg
Quote from: custosnox on April 20, 2012, 10:06:47 PM
I hope you were in full pirate regalia, arggg
The regalia is at the dry cleaners....
I have moved beyond pirates and am now focused on "Dark Shadows". Waiting impatiently for the chance to go see.
And Jonathn Frid died last week.
Only watched the tv show a few times and remember pretty much nothing of it now. I do like Johnny Depp, though, so will revisit the topic.
Thread drift?? No, not at all...this is closely related to the vampires located in the state capital, sucking our blood all day, every day....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 22, 2012, 09:36:04 PM
I have moved beyond pirates and am now focused on "Dark Shadows". Waiting impatiently for the chance to go see.
And Jonathn Frid died last week.
I would run home from school to watch that on channel 8. Barnabas Collins was cool beyond the network's expectations.
Frid had just finished his cameo before he died.
Back on topic...
Creationism is wishful thinking.
Bill Nye 'The Science Guy' Hits Evolution Deniershttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/08/bill-nye-the-science-guy-hits-evolution-deniers/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/08/bill-nye-the-science-guy-hits-evolution-deniers/)
QuoteIn a clip posted to online knowledge forum Big Think via YouTube, former children's show host Bill Nye spoke out against the denial of evolution, saying such views harm young people especially and hamper scientific progress.
Nye, who hosted the educational show "Bill Nye the Science Guy," which aired on PBS Kids from 1993 through 1998, made the statements in a clip posted online on Thursday, and has since been viewed over one million times. In the clip, Nye praises the United States for its contribution to technological innovation, but says that the denial of evolution is unique to the country.
"People still move to the United States. And that's largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science," Nye said in the clip. "When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.
"Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place," he added.
Nye made a three-stop tour through New Hampshire earlier this summer to tout President Obama's education policies while making a push for science and engineering programs. He has endorsed Obama's reelection bid.
In the clip, Nye said that one's "world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution."
"Here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they're at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent," he said.
Nye then goes on to urge adults not to deny the teaching of evolution to young people.
"And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
"It's just really a hard thing, it's really a hard thing. You know, in another couple of centuries that world view, I'm sure, will be, it just won't exist. There's no evidence for it."
The intellectuals of our city council invited one in the practice of Atheism to give the devotion at its meeting and unlike Sodom the fire didn't rain down on it. But unlike to the days of Lot, no one has been told to abandon the city.
Might help us understand why Oklahoma's law makers are so confused.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/73360_529743790379970_1421772727_n.jpg)
Just more evidence of why we are so far down the scale in engineering and science in the world today.
Louisiana senator asks if E. coli evolve into persons
QuoteIt's a painfully familiar scene. A Louisiana state senator (Mike Walsworth) is asking a high-school science teacher about the teaching of evolution in class. He asks if there's any direct example of evolution that can be taught in class. In response the science teacher settles on one of the most elegant and convincing experiments in evolutionary biology – Richard Lenski's decades-long study in which he froze selected generations of E. coli bacteria while allowing others to evolve. The differences between the evolved and original bacterial populations clearly demonstrated evolution.
At that point the good senator asks if the E. coli evolved into a person.
QuoteThe senator's quip might be regarded as a particularly startling admission of ignorance – not to mention anthropomorphism – if it weren't one of the oldest ploys in the creationist playbook. The march of evolutionary science has left creationists very few places to hide, but one of the most common, apparently killer questions they have lobbed from these nooks is to question the difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution in which mutations in amino acids lead to gain or loss of functions is all well and good they say (well, not all of them), but presumably there's still no evidence of macroevolution. The skeptics refuse to be convinced unless, as the senator helpfully points out, they see an example of a bacterium directly transforming into a human being.
Until now those of us who have even the most basic understanding of science have pointed out that such a transformation would be impossible if standard evolutionary theory is well understood since it completely ignores the non-linear, branched nature of the evolutionary tree and the role of contingency in evolution, not to mention the completely solipsistic belief that man must be the pinnacle of every creature's aspirations.
But what we should be really pointing out is how fundamentally this accusation questions not just evolution but the basic scientific method. In questioning macroevolution, the creationists are essentially questioning the whole premise of scientific understanding based on indirect evidence, a philosophy most starkly pioneered by Galileo. Most of science including atoms, the Big Bang, black holes, biochemistry and the understanding of disease, lasers and computers is derived not from direct observation of things we can all see but from indirect but foolproof evidence gained through an exceedingly accurate array of instrumental techniques and conjecturing.
So if you are really denying "macroevolution", you should be questioning the validity of pretty much all of science. Next time a creationist denies macroevolution, we should not be hard pressed to point out that he or she is effectively denying the existence of the material universe.
I guess it could evolve into a person, maybe that's how we end up with so many poo-poo heads.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 14, 2013, 07:51:58 PM
Just more evidence of why we are so far down the scale in engineering and science in the world today.
It is by the limited capacity of the human brain and the 4th dimension of time are we captive in a solar system of mass and space, depending on an unexplainable sun.
Being one solar system of the possible 3 trillion, that by our mode of limited space travel, it is estimated it would require thousands of years of travel.
Quote from: shadows on January 25, 2013, 03:16:03 PM
It is by the limited capacity of the human brain and the 4th dimension of time are we captive in a solar system of mass and space, depending on an unexplainable sun.
Being one solar system of the possible 3 trillion, that by our mode of limited space travel, it is estimated it would require thousands of years of travel.
(http://www.qagoma.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0014/104162/PLANET_OF_THE_APES.jpg)
Quote from: shadows on January 25, 2013, 03:16:03 PM
It is by the limited capacity of the human brain and the 4th dimension of time are we captive in a solar system of mass and space, depending on an unexplainable sun.
Being one solar system of the possible 3 trillion, that by our mode of limited space travel, it is estimated it would require thousands of years of travel.
I'ts Friday and I'm ready to party!
I'll have what he's having please. ;D
Quote from: Gaspar on January 25, 2013, 03:36:56 PM
I'ts Friday and I'm ready to party!
I'll have what he's having please. ;D
if you are going to party outside our solar system better take plenty of your favorite wine cause it could be a lengthy trip.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
(townsend
As it is written unless one’s name is not in the book of life they will not be in the resurrection.
So those nonbelievers will remain as the dust thou art’ and not have to answer on judgment day.
Quote from: shadows on January 25, 2013, 04:25:08 PM
So those nonbelievers will remain as the dust thou art' and not have to answer on judgment day.
So non-believers can do whatever they want and not have to answer for it on judgement day? What a deal. ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 25, 2013, 04:30:59 PM
So non-believers can do whatever they want and not have to answer for it on judgement day? What a deal. ;D
You have to be righteous. Kind of subjective.
Just keep your toes out of the impurities and you're golden.
Quote from: Townsend on January 25, 2013, 04:34:47 PM
You have to be righteous. Kind of subjective.
Just keep your toes out of the impurities and you're golden.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
“In my father’s house are many mansions.” “Were that not true I would not tell you“.
It would be presumed that on judgment day only those names written in the Book of Life would be in attendance.
Quote from: shadows on January 25, 2013, 04:25:08 PM
As it is written unless one's name is not in the book of life they will not be in the resurrection.
You make it sound like an open invitation to anyone and everyone, when the reality IS that only 177,000 will be allowed in...as it is written!
So, do you have some inside information that there are still open reservations? Perhaps the planet hasn't had 177,000 worthy people yet...?? Or are you passing a falsehood just in hopes of furthering some unknown hidden agenda??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 25, 2013, 06:56:02 PM
You make it sound like an open invitation to anyone and everyone, when the reality IS that only 177,000 will be allowed in...as it is written!
So, do you have some inside information that there are still open reservations? Perhaps the planet hasn't had 177,000 worthy people yet...?? Or are you passing a falsehood just in hopes of furthering some unknown hidden agenda??
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel measured the heavens in the sixth century and according to his measurements 177,000 vacancies in this corrupt world of today would be hard to fill.
Quote from: shadows on January 25, 2013, 08:00:17 PM
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel measured the heavens in the sixth century and according to his measurements 177,000 vacancies in this corrupt world of today would be hard to fill.
So, the other 7 billion or so are just out of luck. Sounds like a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell approach to salvation.
Oklahoma 'Creationism Bill': State's House Education Committee Passes Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Acthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/oklahoma-creationism-bill-passes-common-education-committee_n_2733977.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/oklahoma-creationism-bill-passes-common-education-committee_n_2733977.html)
Quote
Oklahoma's most recent creationism measure has made it over its latest hurdle.
The Oklahoma Common Education committee passed the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act Tuesday in a close 9-8 vote, Mother Jones reports.
Introduced by Republican state Rep. Gus Blackwell, the legislation would "permit teachers, schools, and students to explore alternative theories without repercussions," the Week columnist Dana Liebelson writes.
In layman's terms, students would be able to challenge universally accepted scientific theories, such as evolution and climate change. Teachers would also be required to find more effective ways to address such controversies in their teachings.
The legislation's language specifically mentions "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning" as subjects that may spark controversy in the classroom.
While creationism bills have often been linked to religion, Blackwell insists that the legislation's focus is scientific exploration.
"I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks," Blackwell explained to Mother Jones. "A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations."
House Bill 1674 mirrors another creationism measure co-authored by Blackwell -- Senate Bill 758 -- that is currently being considered by the state's Senate Education committee. If passed, H.B. 1674 would take effect on July 1 and would be implemented in the state during the 2013-2014 school year. Oklahoma's House of Representatives will vote on the legislation next.
Blackwell's bill is not the first creationism measure Oklahoma has seen. In 2012, a similar proposal survived an initial rejection by the state's House Common Education Committee, only to die in the Senate Education Committee.
H.B. 1674 is one of several "academic freedom" bills that are being touted by state republicans. According to the National Center for Science Education, Montana, Arizona, Missouri and Indiana are also considering similar pieces of legislation. Thus far this year, Colorado has been the only state to turn down an academic freedom bill, postponing it indefinitely in committee.
Antiscience bill dies in Oklahomahttp://ncse.com/news/2013/02/antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014724 (http://ncse.com/news/2013/02/antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014724)
QuoteSenate Bill 758 (document), the so-called Oklahoma Science Education Act, which would have undermined the integrity of science education in the Sooner State, is dead. February 25, 2013, was the deadline for Senate bills to pass their committees, but the Senate Education Committee adjourned its February 25, 2013, meeting without considering it. Still active in the Oklahoma legislature is House Bill 1674 (document), styled the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, which differs from SB 758 primarily in mentioning "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning" as supposedly controversial topics. HB 1674 passed the House Education Committee on a 9-8 vote on February 19, 2013.
As usual in Oklahoma, resistance to the antievolution bills was spearheaded by the grassroots organization Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education, whose board of governors includes a former member of NCSE's board of directors, Frank J. Sonleitner, and a recipient of NCSE's Friend of Darwin award, Victor H. Hutchison. "OESE has been a model of effective advocacy for supporting good science education," commented NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott. "Unlike evolution and climate change, cloning isn't something that NCSE is really interested in," she joked, "but we might make an exception if we could clone people like Vic and Frank and all of the hardworking and vigilant folks they work with in Oklahoma."
SB 758 would, if enacted, have required state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies" and permitted teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." Unusually but not uniquely, no scientific topics were specifically identified as controversial, but the fact that the sole sponsor of SB 758 was Josh Brecheen (R-District 6), who introduced specifically antievolution legislation in the two previous legislative sessions, is telling.
In late 2010, Brecheen announced his intention to file antievolution legislation in a column in the Durant Daily Democrat (December 19, 2010): "Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. ... Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings[,] is incomplete and unacceptable." In a subsequent column in the newspaper (December 24, 2010), he indicated that his intention was to have creationism presented as scientifically credible, writing, "I have introduced legislation requiring every publically funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution using the known science, even that which conflicts with Darwin's religion."
What Brecheen in fact introduced in 2011, Senate Bill 554, combined a version of the now familiar "academic freedom" language — referring to "the scientific strengths [and] scientific weaknesses of controversial topics ... [which] include but are not limited to biological origins of life and biological evolution" — with a directive for the state board of education to adopt "standards and curricula" that echo the flawed portions of the state science standards adopted in Texas in 2009 with respect to the nature of science and evolution. SB 554 died in committee. In 2012, Brecheen took a new tack with Senate Bill 1742, modeled in part on the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act; SB 1742 likewise died in committee.
With SB 758, Brecheen seemed to be following the lead of Tennessee's "monkey law" (as it was nicknamed by House Speaker Emeritus Jimmy Naifeh), enacted (as Tenn. Code Ann. 49-6-1030) over the protests of the state's scientific and educational communities in 2012. The major difference is that SB 758 omitted the monkey law's statement of legislative findings, which cites "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning" as among the topics that "can cause controversy" when taught in the science classroom of the public schools. The history of Brecheen's legislative efforts clearly demonstrates that it is evolution which was primarily the target of the new bill, however.
Quote from: shadows on January 25, 2013, 08:00:17 PM
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel measured the heavens in the sixth century and according to his measurements 177,000 vacancies in this corrupt world of today would be hard to fill.
The saddest part is that you have such an insular, closed-off-from-reality world to live in. That you could possibly imagine that 99%+ of the worlds population is corrupt and unworthy. That is a dark, dank world with no joy or happiness.
Ya gotta get out more and meet some of these 99% of people. It is nowhere near as bleak as you seem to think.
Second antiscience bill dies in Oklahomahttp://ncse.com/news/2013/03/second-antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014767 (http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/second-antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014767)
QuoteHouse Bill 1674 died in the Oklahoma House of Representatives on March 14, 2013, when a deadline for bills to have their third reading in their house of origin passed. Along with Senate Bill 758, which died in February 2013, HB 1674 was one of two proposed laws that would have undermined the integrity of science education in Oklahoma.
Multiple. It causes a pucker.
I don't understand why we care so much about science education. Healthcare, aerospace, petroleum... those do not need scientists!
Introduced by Gus Blackwell and Sally Kern.
If you actually read the bill you will find that it is neither anti-science, or promotional of any religious belief. It simply makes the point that teachers cannot penalize students for favoring one theory over another, nor can teachers penalize students for their beliefs or non beliefs.
Perhaps it would have received a reading had they not included the prevision for a declaration of emergency upon passage (oh Sally, not everything is an emergency). It's always a good idea to read the bills, because the media does a fine job of glancing over the flaws in legislation, focusing instead on what will get the sheeple all atwitter.
SECTION 4. It being immediately necessary for the preservation
of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and
be in full force from and after its passage and approval.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2013, 02:38:54 PM
Introduced by Gus Blackwell and Sally Kern.
If you actually read the bill you will find that it is neither anti-science, or promotional of any religious belief. It simply makes the point that teachers cannot penalize students for favoring one theory over another, nor can teachers penalize students for their beliefs or non beliefs.
Kern = anti-science
Teachers should be able to tell a student that magic didn't make the Earth suddenly come into being. They should be able to penalize that student a point for that particular quiz.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2013, 02:38:54 PM
Introduced by Gus Blackwell and Sally Kern.
If you actually read the bill you will find that it is neither anti-science, or promotional of any religious belief. It simply makes the point that teachers cannot penalize students for favoring one theory over another, nor can teachers penalize students for their beliefs or non beliefs.
Perhaps it would have received a reading had they not included the prevision for a declaration of emergency upon passage (oh Sally, not everything is an emergency). It's always a good idea to read the bills, because the media does a fine job of glancing over the flaws in legislation, focusing instead on what will get the sheeple all atwitter.
SECTION 4. It being immediately necessary for the preservation
of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and
be in full force from and after its passage and approval.
So if you take a biology test and you get a couple of questions wrong you can claim religious beliefs and not get penalized? This is idiotic.
Beside, creationism isn't a scientific theory. Gasp, are YOU a creationist?
Quote from: swake on March 15, 2013, 03:04:00 PM
So if you take a biology test and you get a couple of questions wrong you can claim religious beliefs and not get penalized? This is idiotic.
Beside, creationism isn't a scientific theory. Gasp, are YOU a creationist?
Again, you didn't read the bill.
D. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of
course materials, but no student in any public school or institution
shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a
particular position on scientific theories.
Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to exempt students from learning,
understanding and being tested on curriculum as prescribed by state
and local education standards.E. The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic
Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific
information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or
nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a
particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote
discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. The intent
of the provisions of this act is to create an environment in which
both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the
facts and observations of science, and the assumptions that underlie
their interpretation.
i.e. if the question is "According to Darwin's theory of evolution, from what animal species did man emerge?" The correct answer would be Primate, no matter what the student's religious belief. The bill does not protect students from the requirement of learning scientific theories and being tested on those theories.
What the bill does protect students from is the supposition of fact. No mater what scientific theory you ascribe to, one thing that all intelligent scientists will claim is that there is quite a difference between science theory and science fact.
Currently, my daughter is learning all about the dangers of Global Warming, but her teacher is very wise to point out that it is one of many climate theories. 35 years ago, she would have been learning about the dangers of global cooling. Perhaps in another 20 years it will be Global Chillin.
When I was in HS, I learned about the theory of evolution and that we were decedent from apes. We even had that little picture with the monkey-chimp-ape-caveman-man walking through evolution picture. Now that theory has been revised to illustrate that we did not evolve FROM apes, but we both evolved from a common and unknown ancestor, but took branching evolutionary paths. No doubt in another decade or two that will be revised again.
Revisions and improvements in scientific theory are not spurred by those who are taught the theories as facts that must simply be accepted. On the contrary, scientific advances come from minds willing to challenge accepted scientific theory, and test new hypotheses.
This bill prevents the establishment of "Science Fact" in the minds of children, and encourages an understanding that the foundation of science is
theory, and those theories are meant to be challenged.
Personally, I am quite amazed this came from the desk of Sally Kerns.
Don't allow the media to tug on your nose-ring.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2013, 03:33:18 PM
i.e. if the question is "According to Darwin's theory of evolution, from what animal species did man emerge?" The correct answer would be Primate, no matter what the student's religious belief. The bill does not protect students from the requirement of learning scientific theories and being tested on those theories.
What the bill does protect students from is the supposition of fact. No mater what scientific theory you ascribe to, one thing that all intelligent scientists will claim is that there is quite a difference between science theory and science fact.
Currently, my daughter is learning all about the dangers of Global Warming, but her teacher is very wise to point out that it is one of many climate theories. 35 years ago, she would have been learning about the dangers of global cooling. Perhaps in another 20 years it will be Global Chillin.
When I was in HS, I learned about the theory of evolution and that we were decedent from apes. We even had that little picture with the monkey-chimp-ape-caveman-man walking through evolution picture. Now that theory has been revised to illustrate that we did not evolve FROM apes, but we both evolved from a common and unknown ancestor, but took branching evolutionary paths. No doubt in another decade or two that will be revised again.
Revisions and improvements in scientific theory are not spurred by those who are taught the theories as facts that must simply be accepted. On the contrary, scientific advances come from minds willing to challenge accepted scientific theory, and test new hypotheses.
This bill prevents the establishment of "Science Fact" in the minds of children, and encourages an understanding that the foundation of science is theory, and those theories are meant to be challenged.
Personally, I am quite amazed this came from the desk of Sally Kerns.
Don't allow the media to tug on your nose-ring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
QuoteA scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]
Religious based beliefs are not scientific theories.
Quote from: Townsend on March 15, 2013, 03:40:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
Religious based beliefs are not scientific theories.
Nowhere does the bill establish that or make any assertion to that effect. In fact is states the contrary in section E.
Come on folks, it's only 4 pages.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2013, 03:46:57 PM
Nowhere does the bill establish that or make any assertion to that effect. In fact is states the contrary in section E.
Come on folks, it's only 4 pages.
You -
QuoteNo mater what scientific theory you ascribe to, one thing that all intelligent scientists will claim is that there is quite a difference between science theory and science fact.
What differentiating scientific theories were you referring to?
Quote from: Townsend on March 15, 2013, 03:50:19 PM
You -
What differentiating scientific theories were you referring to?
Global Warming for instance. . .I understand it, but I don't believe it to be fact.
Hubble's law of cosmic expansion. . . I find it a bit too simple in that it only accounts for a single dimensional plane.
Evolution. . .again, there needs to be further science, especially in the realm of mutation. New theories suggest that very fast mutations as response to dramatic environment changes may be more influential than the slow changes over millennia.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. . .I think it is vastly incomplete because there is no solid thread between probability and observation.
There are lots of theories, and there are lots of laws and even some facts. The idea is that the theories are meant to be challenged, the laws are designed to be general, and the facts are proven.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2013, 04:05:54 PM
Global Warming for instance. . .I understand it, but I don't believe it to be fact.
Hubble's law of cosmic expansion. . . I find it a bit too simple in that it only accounts for a single dimensional plane.
Evolution. . .again, there needs to be further science, especially in the realm of mutation. New theories suggest that very fast mutations as response to dramatic environment changes may be more influential than the slow changes over millennia.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. . .I think it is vastly incomplete because there is no solid thread between probability and observation.
There are lots of theories, and there are lots of laws and even some facts. The idea is that the theories are meant to be challenged, the laws are designed to be general, and the facts are proven.
Really? You were referring to all of these in your statement. This is what you had in mind at the time you typed. Nice job looking around on the interwebs.
Anyway, you and I will never agree. This attempt was obviously trying to allow legally teaching creationist ideas in the Oklahoma classrooms.
Quote from: Townsend on March 15, 2013, 04:10:24 PM
Really? You were referring to all of these in your statement. This is what you had in mind at the time you typed. Nice job looking around on the interwebs.
Anyway, you and I will never agree. This attempt was obviously trying to allow legally teaching creationist ideas in the Oklahoma classrooms.
Actually the bill states the opposite.
E. The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic
Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific
information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or
nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a
particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote
discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. The intent
of the provisions of this act is to create an environment in which
both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the
facts and observations of science, and the assumptions that underlie
their interpretation.
All you have to do is read.
Anywhoo, the bill is flawed because of the moronic section 4.
Carry on.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2013, 04:26:26 PM
Anywhoo
And so we go with this guy's thoughts over yours.
QuoteWriting in The Oklahoma Daily (March 6, 2013), Richard E. Broughton, Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Oklahoma, described HB 1674 as "a 'Trojan horse' bill specifically crafted by an out-of-state, religious think tank to open the door for the teaching of religious or political views in school science classes. This is clearly understood by everyone familiar with the bill on both sides. HB 1674 would write false claims about science into state law, contradicting the wealth of scientific evidence, our own curriculum standards and the expertise of Oklahoma's scientists and teachers." He concluded, "Passage of this bill will damage the education of our students, diminish the ability to attract scientifically-based industries to Oklahoma and will likely lead to costly lawsuits over constitutionality."
http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/second-antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014767 (http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/second-antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014767)
Quote from: Townsend on March 15, 2013, 04:32:54 PM
And so we go with this guy's thoughts over yours.
http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/second-antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014767 (http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/second-antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014767)
Or you could read it. Not sure how he gets "HB 1674 would write false claims about science into state law," but he has more letters behind his name than I do, so you should go with what he says.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2013, 04:40:27 PM
he has more letters behind his name than I do, so you should go with what he says.
He could be running up and down Sesame Street with a person's hand up his backside talking about the ABC's and your advice should be the same.
The guy nails it... a trojan horse bill. What else is the point? We need a law to say a person cannot be punished for having a different view? Of course not. Unless the point is to argue that flunking me for writing "Jesus did it" for every answer must not be punished by a poor grade. The bill says nothing shall stop testing as mandated... it doesn't say "this bill explicitly does not give rise to an arguement that a letter grade should be changed based on personal beliefs."
Sorry, Kern did a good job disguising it... but what other point is there?
Additionally, Global Warming as currently understood may be wrong. It is very popular to cast it in a doubtful light. But some 140000 peered reviewed papers have been published and 99% agree that the cooling trend of the previous 500 years suddenly reversed and drastically began warming shortly after the industrial revolution. That trend correlates strongly with historical data of warming trends in periods of high CO2 in the atmosphere. Coupled with computer models and lab experiments the evidence is overwhelming.
The details are being debated - what is the ultimate effect? Can the planet self regulate somehow? Would a change in behavior now matter?
But there is a nuanced line between pointing out how science modifies or throws out theories when faced with new evidence, and teaching that something is "just a theory." We are still modifying the theory of gravity, it has not been unified on a sub atomic level... but discouraging the teaching of the theory pfbgravity because it has not been perfected is ludicrous.
I say we test it by encouraging Sally Kern to take a flying leap, at very least off the steps of the capital building where she continues to embarrass the state.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 16, 2013, 08:58:55 AM
Additionally, Global Warming as currently understood may be wrong. It is very popular to cast it in a doubtful light. But some 140000 peered reviewed papers have been published and 99% agree that the cooling trend of the previous 500 years suddenly reversed and drastically began warming shortly after the industrial revolution. That trend correlates strongly with historical data of warming trends in periods of high CO2 in the atmosphere. Coupled with computer models and lab experiments the evidence is overwhelming.
The details are being debated - what is the ultimate effect? Can the planet self regulate somehow? Would a change in behavior now matter?
But there is a nuanced line between pointing out how science modifies or throws out theories when faced with new evidence, and teaching that something is "just a theory." We are still modifying the theory of gravity, it has not been unified on a sub atomic level... but discouraging the teaching of the theory pfbgravity because it has not been perfected is ludicrous.
The correlation of CO2 with warming trends has been observed for 450,000 years worth of data. Check out the Vostok ice core data presented some time back. It is very obvious that any and every change in temperature is FOLLOWED by a change in CO2 levels. The observations of recent data are too short to make any grand conclusions yet. It IS cause for concern, but the action - if any - that may be needed is nowhere near clear!! Reducing CO2 may not be the answer - it may be the opposite. We do not know.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 17, 2013, 08:03:54 PM
The correlation of CO2 with warming trends has been observed for 450,000 years worth of data. Check out the Vostok ice core data presented some time back. It is very obvious that any and every change in temperature is FOLLOWED by a change in CO2 levels. The observations of recent data are too short to make any grand conclusions yet. It IS cause for concern, but the action - if any - that may be needed is nowhere near clear!! Reducing CO2 may not be the answer - it may be the opposite. We do not know.
CO2 warms, period.
The "lag" that is seen in ice core data (which over the years as the data has become ever better and more precise is getting smaller and smaller) is because in those particular instances it's not the CO2 that is starting the warming but things like the milankovitch cycles, solar maximum/minimums, etc. BUT, even here it was expected that as those cycles began they would trigger more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere (which again warms) REINFORCING the initial starting factor.
In other words, we can predict the amount of warming that should likely occur due to those cycles, BUT the amount of warming that actually happens is far greater... one main reason, CO2. It's called "feedback".
Look at it yet another way. Today we see that the warming (and we should be in a cooling trend) is being FOLLOWED by more ice melting at the north pole. Can you then argue that the melting ice can then cause the earth to get warmer? Yes you can. Less ice/more water = more heat being absorbed versus being reflected. Also, more exposed ocean water and higher winds over those areas allows more CO2 to be released from the oceans into the atmosphere. Also, as the oceans warm (for whatever combination of reasons) frozen methane deposits can be released, and as the earth warms (for whatever combination of reasons) permafrost thaws more and releases more gasses that warm the atmosphere, etc.
The orbital "cycles" aren't enough to alone cause the amount of climate change we see over time. They do however trigger/force the reinforcing mechanisms which do then cause the larger amounts of climate change we see. BOTH the Melankovitch cycles AND increased CO2 can cause warming, as does more methane in the atmosphere, less ice at the poles, 11 year solar maximums, etc. etc. In the over all scheme of things, the CO2 reinforcement (more and more CO2) results in more warming than the "cycles" alone.
Google... (myth CO2 lags warming climate change) for more info.
Quote from: TheArtist on March 17, 2013, 10:21:09 PM
CO2 warms, period.
The "lag" that is seen in ice core data (which over the years as the data has become ever better and more precise is getting smaller and smaller) is because in those particular instances it's not the CO2 that is starting the warming but things like the milankovitch cycles, solar maximum/minimums, etc. BUT, even here it was expected that as those cycles began they would trigger more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere (which again warms) REINFORCING the initial starting factor.
In other words, we can predict the amount of warming that should likely occur due to those cycles, BUT the amount of warming that actually happens is far greater... one main reason, CO2. It's called "feedback".
Look at it yet another way. Today we see that the warming (and we should be in a cooling trend) is being FOLLOWED by more ice melting at the north pole. Can you then argue that the melting ice can then cause the earth to get warmer? Yes you can. Less ice/more water = more heat being absorbed versus being reflected. Also, more exposed ocean water and higher winds over those areas allows more CO2 to be released from the oceans into the atmosphere. Also, as the oceans warm (for whatever combination of reasons) frozen methane deposits can be released, and as the earth warms (for whatever combination of reasons) permafrost thaws more and releases more gasses that warm the atmosphere, etc.
The orbital "cycles" aren't enough to alone cause the amount of climate change we see over time. They do however trigger/force the reinforcing mechanisms which do then cause the larger amounts of climate change we see. BOTH the Melankovitch cycles AND increased CO2 can cause warming, as does more methane in the atmosphere, less ice at the poles, 11 year solar maximums, etc. etc. In the over all scheme of things, the CO2 reinforcement (more and more CO2) results in more warming than the "cycles" alone.
Google... (myth CO2 lags warming climate change) for more info.
Do all your oscillators amplify and all your amplifiers oscillate?
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 17, 2013, 11:05:20 PM
Do all your oscillators amplify and all your amplifiers oscillate?
No and yes.
I didn't mean to choose an example that deviated the topic. Just an example to show how scientific debate can be framed. If someone interjected into the CO2 argument and said that the bible says only God creates heat, everyone would agree that is not a viable topic for educational study outside theology.
Yet in biology for some reason that debate is still going on.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 18, 2013, 02:47:57 PM
I didn't mean to choose an example that deviated the topic. Just an example to show how scientific debate can be framed. If someone interjected into the CO2 argument and said that the bible says only God creates heat, everyone would agree that is not a viable topic for educational study outside theology.
Yet in biology for some reason that debate is still going on.
I suspect massive amounts of corned beef and cabbage consumed yesterday is contributing to an increase in green house gasses today.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 18, 2013, 03:09:38 PM
I suspect massive amounts of corned beef and cabbage consumed yesterday is contributing to an increase in green house gasses today.
I spent almost all my day on I-44 between St. Louis and here. Drove through the worst rainstorm I've driven in since I lived in Houston. Only to get here and see we got zero rain.
What a way to spend St. Pattie's Day. I was so tired I didn't even drink when I got home.
But the weekend made up for it.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 15, 2013, 04:40:27 PM
Or you could read it. Not sure how he gets "HB 1674 would write false claims about science into state law," but he has more letters behind his name than I do, so you should go with what he says.
Of course some of us read it and realized exactly what it was, an attempt to back door ID into the science room, because it seems that the right does not understand the term "scientific theory." It does not mean "my guess on it is that this happened.". It means that it is based on scientific evidence, and has been proven to exist, even if we don't fully understand all the details of it. When it comes right down to it, this bill had no other intent than that, and this misunderstanding of scientific theory would have caused all kinds of strife.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 18, 2013, 02:47:57 PM
Yet in biology for some reason that debate is still going on.
Reason; ignorance and superstition.