Kentucky Lawmakers Shocked To Find Evolution In Biology Tests

[ElNono]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/kentucky-lawmakers-shocked-to-find-evolutoin-in-biology-tests/

[boutons_deux]

14 Wacky "Facts" Kids Will Learn in Louisiana's Voucher Schools

1. Dinosaurs and humans probably hung out: "Bible-believing Christians cannot accept any evolutionary interpretation. Dinosaurs and humans were definitely on the earth at the same time and may have even lived side by side within the past few thousand years."—Life Science, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2007


2. Dragons were totally real: "[Is] it possible that a fire-breathing animal really existed? Today some scientists are saying yes. They have found large chambers in certain dinosaur skulls…The large skull chambers could have contained special chemical-producing glands. When the animal forced the chemicals out of its mouth or nose, these substances may have combined and produced fire and smoke."—Life Science, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2007

3. "God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ."—America: Land That I Love, Teacher ed., A Beka Book, 1994

4. Africa needs religion: "Africa is a continent with many needs. It is still in need of the gospel…Only about ten percent of Africans can read and write. In some areas the mission schools have been shut down by Communists who have taken over the government."—Old World History and Geography in Christian Perspective, 3rd ed., A Beka Book, 2004

5. Slave masters were nice guys: "A few slave holders were undeniably cruel. Examples of slaves beaten to death were not common, neither were they unknown. The majority of slave holders treated their slaves well."—United States History for Christian Schools, 2nd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 1991


6. The KKK was A-OK: "[The Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross. Klan targets were bootleggers, wife-beaters, and immoral movies. In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians."—United States History for Christian Schools, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2001


7. The Great Depression wasn't as bad as the liberals made it sound: "Perhaps the best known work of propaganda to come from the Depression was John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath…Other forms of propaganda included rumors of mortgage foreclosures, mass evictions, and hunger riots and exaggerated statistics representing the number of unemployed and homeless people in America."—United States History: Heritage of Freedom, 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1996

8. SCOTUS enslaved fetuses: "Ignoring 3,500 years of Judeo-Christian civilization, religion, morality, and law, the Burger Court held that an unborn child was not a living person but rather the "property" of the mother (much like slaves were considered property in the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford)."—American Government in Christian Perspective, 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1997

9. The Red Scare isn't over yet: "It is no wonder that Satan hates the family and has hurled his venom against it in the form of Communism."— American Government in Christian Perspective, 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1997

10. Mark Twain and Emily Dickinson were a couple of hacks: "[Mark] Twain's outlook was both self-centered and ultimately hopeless…Twain's skepticism was clearly not the honest questioning of a seeker of truth but the deliberate defiance of a confessed rebel."—Elements of Literature for Christian Schools, Bob Jones University, 2001

"Several of [Emily Dickinson's] poems show a presumptuous attitude concerning her eternal destiny and a veiled disrespect for authority in general. Throughout her life she viewed salvation as a gamble, not a certainty. Although she did view the Bible as a source of poetic inspiration, she never accepted it as an inerrant guide to life."—Elements of Literature for Christian Schools, Bob Jones University, 2001

11. Abstract algebra is too dang complicated: "Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."—ABeka.com

12. Gay people "have no more claims to special rights than child molesters or rapists."—Teacher's Resource Guide to Current Events for Christian Schools, 1998-1999, Bob Jones University Press, 1998

13. "Global environmentalists have said and written enough to leave no doubt that their goal is to destroy the prosperous economies of the world's richest nations."—Economics: Work and Prosperity in Christian Perspective, 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1999

Plotting world destruction, BRB. Lynn Freeny, Department of Energy/FlickrPlotting economic apocalypse, BRB Lynn Freeny, Department of Energy/Flickr

14. Globalization is a precursor to rapture: "But instead of this world unification ushering in an age of prosperity and peace, as most globalists believe it will, it will be a time of unimaginable human suffering as recorded in God's Word. The Anti-christ will tightly regulate who may buy and sell."—Economics: Work and Prosperity in Christian Perspective, 2nd ed., A Beka Book, 1999

He'll probably be in cahoots with the global environmentalists. Luca Signorelli/WikipediaSwapping insider-trading secrets is the devil's favorite pastime. Luca Signorelli/WikipediaWhew! Seems extreme. But perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised. Gov. Jindal, you remember, once tried to perform an exorcism on a college gal pal.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/07/photos-evangelical-curricula-louisiana-tax-dollars

ALEC and VRWC must be pleased. :lol

[Homeland Security]

Read your Spengler. As a civilization collapses, the little people lurch back to a primitive form of the civilization's defining religion.

[mercos]

At least its not my state this time...

[Shastafarian]

The dark ages were pretty fun right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Read your Spengler. As a civilization collapses, the little people lurch back to a primitive form of the civilization's defining religion.

Perhaps in the South or Appalachia, otoh religious affiliation as a whole is dropping.

[boutons_deux]

Is It Finally Time to Let the South Secede?

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/shutterstock_77258020.jpg

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that cultural friction between the North and South persists to this day. After all, we fought an incredibly brutal, ugly Civil War. The battlelines that were drawn then continued to divide us through the Reconstruction period and well into the middle of the 20th century, as federal troops were once again deployed to enforce the civil rights acts.

According to Chuck Thompson, a veteran travel writer who toured the American South, a degree of mutual enmity between Northerners and Southerners continues to be a source of cultural tension and political gridlock. We remain divided even as we have grown to become the world's superpower.

http://www.alternet.org/books/it-finally-time-let-south-secede?paging=off

Another way to divide America is sub/urban vs rural. eg, PA is blue in the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia "corners", but red everywhere else.

[Spurminator]

The more I hear from the anti-evolution crowd, the more I'm convinced they might be on to something... Not because any of their arguments have merit, mind you, just by their very existence.

[boutons_deux]

"by their very existence" of what?

the number of anti-evolution proponents?

or

the number of the unique anti-evolution arguments?

As Yoni does, piling up anti-evolution ratshit ends up with nothing but a pile of ratshit.

[baseline bum]

5. Slave masters were nice guys: "A few slave holders were undeniably cruel. Examples of slaves beaten to death were not common, neither were they unknown. The majority of slave holders treated their slaves well."—United States History for Christian Schools, 2nd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 1991

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


LOL founding fathers creating a bill of rights while owning n!ggers outright. Founding father worship is the funniest thing about libertarians.


Is it?

Serious question. If you were a slave, and I were a master...

Would you want to be owned by an abusive master, or a master that believed in rights and treated you well.

Can you say that any of the founding father abused their slaves? What if I bough as many slaves as I could to protect them from others brutality. Does that make me an evil slave owner?

[Spurminator]

"by their very existence" of what?

The existence of the anti-evolution crowd.

[TeyshaBlue]

"For one, of the 119 (mostly Christian) participating schools, Zack Kopplin, a gutsy college sophomore who's taken to Change.org to stonewall the program, has identified at least 19 that teach or champion creationist nonscience and will rake in nearly $4 million in public funding from the initial round of voucher designations."

"Many of these schools, Kopplin notes, rely on Pensacola-based A Beka Book curriculum or Bob Jones University Press textbooks to teach their pupils Bible-based "facts," such as the existence of Nessie the Loch Ness Monster and all sorts of pseudoscience that researcher Rachel Tabachnick and writer Thomas Vinciguerra have thankfully pored over so the rest of world doesn't have to."

Ok. Population set of public schools in Louisiana = 1,678 schools.
Mother Jones (:lmao) states that there is now a population subset of 119 participating Christian schools. Of this subset, 19 that teach or champion creationist nonscience. (Franky, I'm surprised that number is that low.) Of that subset of 19, "many" will use a batshit crazy textbook package.

For that statistically meaningless <19 data set, Mother Jones goes on a full page rant.

smh.

[SnakeBoy]

If these are the changes they want then what's the problem...


The proposed science standards would require students to complete such tasks as:

■ Explain the biological definition of evolution.

■ Differentiate among chemical evolution, organic evolution and the evolutionary steps along the way to aerobic heterotrophs and photosynthetic autotrophs.

■ Discuss Darwin's principle of survival of the fittest and explain what Darwin meant by natural selection.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/08/14/2298914/gop-lawmakers-question-standards.html#storylink=cpy

[SnakeBoy]

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13

Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale....

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

[ElNono]

Henry Madison Morris (October 6, 1918 – February 25, 2006) was an American young earth creationist and Christian apologist. He was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. He is considered by many to be "the father of modern creation science."

In The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict (1989) Morris wrote that "the denial of God – rejecting the reality of supernatural creation and the creator's sovereign rule of the world – has always been the root cause of every human problem." Morris was criticized by Randy Moore, of University of Minnesota, for writing in the book that "evolutionism" is satanic and responsible for racism, abortion, and a decline in morality.

[ElNono]

Biological Evolution happens and is testable at the micro level. The discussion, if any, is at the macro level. Plus it's clearly stated it's a theory. Where this whole thing goes bonkers is when you try to pass the god of the gaps as science.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I got as far as the part about evolution not being observable and quit. Just sounded to me like:

http://www.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/667.jpg

[SnakeBoy]

Biological Evolution happens and is testable at the micro level. The discussion, if any, is at the macro level. Plus it's clearly stated it's a theory. Where this whole thing goes bonkers is when you try to pass the god of the gaps as science.

I don't disagree with any of that. That was just a bizarro bouton's impersonation.

I don't understand the opposition to macro evolutionary theory. It doesn't conflict with creationism from my perspective. Actually, if you take a non literal interpretation of the 6 days of creation from the bible it is suprisingly similar to the scientific view...well to me at least.

[SnakeBoy]

I got as far as the part about evolution not being observable and quit. Just sounded to me like:


In terms of macro evolution he's correct that there is very little observable evidence.

edit - it's actually a well written article that accurately points out the holes in macro evolutionary theory. Holes that scientist's debate amongst each other. It falls apart when he gets to the evolution is a religion part.

[ElNono]

I don't disagree with any of that. That was just a bizarro bouton's impersonation.

Got it :lol

[boutons_deux]

The existence of the anti-evolution crowd.

ok, the epidemic of obese greasebags must mean they gaining credibility in their approach to self-respect, self-discipline, and healthy eating.

[boutons_deux]

ICR :lol

Henry Morris :lol and he and all creationists can go fuck themselves

an asshole whoring as a "scientist" for creationism :lol

[Jacob1983]

Why do people basically say that if a person does not believe that every human came from monkeys or their relatives then that equates that they don't believe that dinosaurs existed? What if some higher being one day all of a sudden farted and the universe and Earth were created?

[mercos]

Why do people basically say that if a person does not believe that every human came from monkeys or their relatives then that equates that they don't believe that dinosaurs existed? What if some higher being one day all of a sudden farted and the universe and Earth were created?

People can believe what they want, just don't call it science if you made it up.

[Yonivore]

People can believe what they want, just don't call it science if you made it up.
Scientists do it all the time; Anthropogenic global climate change is based on a bunch of made up shit they call "assumptions" plugged into other made up shit they call "models."

[mercos]

Incorrect. Scientists make a hypothesis, that then has to be tested and proven. They don't get to just say something like humans and dinosaurs lived together and call it a day.

[Yonivore]

Incorrect. Scientists make a hypothesis, that then has to be tested and proven. They don't get to just say something like humans and dinosaurs lived together and call it a day.
Well, normally, I'd agree. But, when it comes to climate science, they have pretty much done just that.

They invent things like "consensus" to justify their edicts.

Calls into question their approach to all science.

[boutons_deux]

Well, normally, I'd agree. But, when it comes to climate science, they have pretty much done just that.

They invent things like "consensus" to justify their edicts.

Calls into question their approach to all science.

"climate science, they have pretty much done just that"

no, they obviously haven't

there's a consensus, aka general, majority agreement (not unanimity), that undeniably global warming is anthropogenic. The minority of "scientist" who deny AGW are almost completely on the payroll of (carbon) polluting corporations.

Yoni, is a check box shill for the Kock Bros and other carbon processors and UCA.

[Yonivore]

"climate science, they have pretty much done just that"

no, they obviously haven't

there's a consensus, aka general, majority agreement (not unanimity), that undeniably global warming is anthropogenic. The minority of "scientist" who deny AGW are almost completely on the payroll of (carbon) polluting corporations.

Yoni, is a check box shill for the Kock Bros and other carbon processors and UCA.
Consensus != Proven Theory

Oh, and I don't even know what UCA is and only know of the Koch Brothers because of all the left-wing blather over them.

[boutons_deux]

Consensus != Proven Theory

Oh, and I don't even know what UCA is and only know of the Koch Brothers because of all the left-wing blather over them.

United Corporations of America, like the Business Roundtable, the multiple cartels comprised of mega-corps defeating free markets and competitions, the US Chamber of Commerce, etc, etc. Corporate-Americans united in sucking, often stealing, every last penny out of Human-Americans pockets.

and yes, the Kock Bros and their nefarious, secret financing of right-wing causes were OUTED by the progressives.

yes, your ignorance of the financers of the crap you post here speaks volumes about your authenticity.

[Wild Cobra]

Incorrect. Scientists make a hypothesis, that then has to be tested and proven. They don't get to just say something like humans and dinosaurs lived together and call it a day.
So why are we still continuing to find problems in the AGW theory?

[mercos]

I haven't seen to many scientists not on the payroll of a large company with conflicting interests pointing out major holes in AGW. That being said, it is still a theory at this point, and not scientific law. Look no further than the recent unveiling of the Higgs Boson to see how stringent the testing is in order for something to be said with absolute certainty.

[Yonivore]

I haven't seen to many scientists not on the payroll of a large company with conflicting interests pointing out major holes in AGW.
Sincerely,
Pauline Kael

[SnakeBoy]

That being said, it is still a theory at this point, and not scientific law.

It will never be a scientific law.

Ya'll need some help...


The Scientific Meaning of the Terms

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon that is generally accepted as being true because it is based on large amounts of empirical evidence.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories have been tested and verified and are general accepted by scientists beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?
Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.
Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.
Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not."
Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.
In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.
Useful Prediction: If I leave food items open to the air, they will spoil. If I want to keep them from spoiling, I will keep them covered. Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be modified.

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They can never be modified because they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.

[Wild Cobra]

I haven't seen to many scientists not on the payroll of a large company with conflicting interests pointing out major holes in AGW. That being said, it is still a theory at this point, and not scientific law. Look no further than the recent unveiling of the Higgs Boson to see how stringent the testing is in order for something to be said with absolute certainty.
No.

AGW as it is commonly talked about is only a hypothesis. Of course, this faith based religion will always be fact by the believers. Parts of it are sound theory, until you try to quantify it.

[SnakeBoy]

No.

AGW as it is commonly talked about is only a hypothesis. Of course, this faith based religion will always be fact by the believers. Parts of it are sound theory, until you try to quantify it.

No it's a theory. See post #34.

[Wild Cobra]

No it's a theory. See post #34.
I would agree if the "theory" didn't have so many aspects that are still unpredictable and even wrong. The fact that it is accepted by the alarmist crowd still doesn't make it theory when holes are clearly shot through it. If it underwent an open peer review process rather tghan a closed peer reveiw process where only the like minded individuals peer review it, and the crutiny of skeptics agreed with the findings, then i would be closer to calling it theory.

That "based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers" part is what's wrong. The AGW peer review process is not using detached researchers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

solubility charts and Windows calculator > NSF

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I do like how yoni's brain turned a discussion on evolution into the greenhouse effect.

[Agloco]

Scientists do it all the time; Anthropogenic global climate change is based on a bunch of made up shit they call "assumptions" plugged into other made up shit they call "models."


Incorrect. Scientists make a hypothesis, that then has to be tested and proven. They don't get to just say something like humans and dinosaurs lived together and call it a day.

[Agloco]

So why are we still continuing to find problems in the AGW theory?

Because its a theory......... if it were being called a law, this would indeed be problematic.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, normally, I'd agree. But, when it comes to climate science, they have pretty much done just that.

They invent things like "consensus" to justify their edicts.

Calls into question their approach to all science.

God no matter how much you're shown this is bunch of bullshit you keep repeating it.

I am far from perfect, but I cannot imagine what it is to walk around with so little critical thinking ability.

[mouse]

If only Scientist would admit Evolution is just another theory just like the Bible is,
we could all get along.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/bored/vlcsnap-258191.png

[DMC]

I would agree if the "theory" didn't have so many aspects that are still unpredictable and even wrong. The fact that it is accepted by the alarmist crowd still doesn't make it theory when holes are clearly shot through it. If it underwent an open peer review process rather tghan a closed peer reveiw process where only the like minded individuals peer review it, and the crutiny of skeptics agreed with the findings, then i would be closer to calling it theory.

That "based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers" part is what's wrong. The AGW peer review process is not using detached researchers.
I disagree with the proposal. Any person can debunk a theory if they can show that it's wrong. You can become famous for it in fact. Everyone doesn't need to peer review proposals as the process would take too long to go over everyone's objections, as most of them would be based on misinformation or just ignorance in general. They still deal with that but on a more limited basis.

Theories are show to be wrong on occasion, but more often than not the term "theory" is misused when it's really just a presumption or hypothesis.

Also important to note is that a theory attempts to explain nature and uses fundamental laws to do so.

Theories don't graduate to become laws.

[DMC]

I don't disagree with any of that. That was just a bizarro bouton's impersonation.

I don't understand the opposition to macro evolutionary theory. It doesn't conflict with creationism from my perspective. Actually, if you take a non literal interpretation of the 6 days of creation from the bible it is suprisingly similar to the scientific view...well to me at least.
It's silly to try to stuff what we believe we know into what they believed they knew 2000 years ago. Imagine doing that in medicine:

Yes, we know that many diseases are linked to bacterial infections, but I don't see how that conflicts with the concept of demons. Demons can be small bacteria, and by casting them out, the bacteria are killed by the body's immune system.

Do we really need to do that? Are we so uncomfortable with reality that we need that security blanket of dogma to get through?

[Wild Cobra]

Because its a theory......... if it were being called a law, this would indeed be problematic.

So you agree we will still find holes in it.

Thanx.

[DMC]

If you apply scientific method to everything you believe to be true in the world of science, you right away dissolve the concept of a god. Some are so eager to use science to prove god but refuse to admit science does just the opposite. You can say god and science aren't at odds, but they are. If the universe works as if a god doesn't exist, then it stands to reason that a god doesn't exist.

[mercos]

Clearly, DMC, your avatar is proof that if God does exist, he hates us all... :p:

[Agloco]

So you agree we will still find holes in it.

Thanx.

Indeed we might. As was stated earlier, theories must be falsifiable and they must have the ability to be modified in response to new evidence.

In both regards, AGW fits the bill.

I would hasten to add that your definition of "holes" needs clarification.

[AussieFanKurt]

Why in the 21st century is anyone surprised about evolution being taught? Would that rather Adam and Eve or some tripe like that?

[Clipper Nation]

Why in the 21st century is anyone surprised about evolution being taught? Would that rather Adam and Eve or some tripe like that?

Not only would the neocons want Adam and Eve taught in biology class, they also want the lesson to be finished with the old homophobe adage, "Adam and EVE, not Adam and STEVE", tbh....