Rover

Because astrology does not have any scientific evidence to back it up, why should we teach fantasy in a science class just because some people really wish it to be true? You really think we should let un-educated teenagers decide on the merits of a complex scientific idea instead of the scientific community? what? Should we have done that with nuclear physics, E=mc^2, cosmology, plate tectonics? Do you even realize what you're saying? That's not a model, that's just a statement. One which is patently false, just because you are ignorant of the evidence does not mean it does not exist. Gauging your knowledge deficit on this topic I'd say you probably have to start from the beginning http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=14 And creationism cannot be falsified because the explanation offered can fit any and every observation. It can never be proven wrong, you can just say "That's the way god/the designer did it." That's not science because it can't be proven wrong. For example human chromosome #2 I'm glad you asked! I'll let Evolutionary biologist Ken Miller explain What's the creationist explanation for a chromosome with a telomere in the middle? "THat's the way the designer did it" Does that really have explanatory power? Fine maybe my definition of a theory was a bit oversimplified. However on your other statements you are simply dead wrong. Evolution predicted transitional fossils, these exist even though you are completely unaware of them. Again, just because you have no knowledge of something doesn't mean it does not exist. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_03 As well as the video I linked earlier. I would also like to posit a question to you: what is the mechanism which prevents positive or neutral mutations in DNA from accumulating throughout the generations? Just like peer reviewed math journals won't publish my papers on how 2+2=65, I'm an alternative mathist. It was hell for me going through school having to conform to the scientific dogma that 2+2=4. Had to fake my way through every school I've ever been to. Edit: let my clarify, you are inferring that those peer reviewed journals are motivated by some kind of demand for adherence to a strict unshakable dogma rather than the scientific method and evidence. This is your premise, however this premise is unfounded. You will need to prove your premise before I can accept your argument.

Edit: Should we teach astrology as well when we teach students about astronomy? Go on the web there are just as many people who fervently believe in astrology just as much as creationists believe in creationism. Just because people fervently believe and adhere to something does not mean it has merit. Like I said before, a high school science classroom isn't the place to decide this anyway. No one rushed to get big bang cosmology into the science classroom while it was still largely hypothetical and competing with the steady state model. We didn't let 14 year olds decide on that, we didn't "teach the controversy" we let the scientific community decide based on the evidence. Same with plate tectonics. Why would creationism/ID get special treatment? Because it agrees with your religious views? Is teaching students that F=ma forcing our beliefs on them? Is teaching students that the planet is round and not the center of the universe tantamount to forcing our beliefs on them? You've got some weapons grade projection going on there btw. Actually I do think teachers should talk about ID/creationism in a science class. To teach students to discern the difference between genuine science like evolution, which makes predictions, can be falsified, multiple lines of evidence and hundreds of thousands of studies and papers published in peer reviewed science journals. And pseudoscience like creationism, which attempts to use scientific terminology but offers no models, yields no testable predictions, offers no evidence in support of it, and cannot be falsified. And instead of a community of scientists with educations from accredited universities publishing papers and studies in peer reviewed journals there is a collection of lunatics and con men who do not publish in peer reviewed science journals, instead dream up conspiracies to explain why they're not doing this. I'm all for teaching students the scientific method, and how to think scientifically. That alone should put a huge dent in creationism's popularity. Also BTG, you still don't understand the difference between facts and theories. We tried explaining this to you... Theories explain facts, like the diversity of life. Theories are tested by getting them to make predictions and then test those predictions against observed reality. Like the human #2 chromosome.

"Is there any end to the number of problems I can solve just by beating the hell out of something? I'm not sure there is!"

I also I would like to add that among the first world nations, the United States is the only country which is even discussing this issue. In western Europe the teaching of evolution in schools is a complete non-issue. There is no controversy, it's a manufactroversy created by religious kooks who are convinced that the acceptance and teaching of the theory of evolution leads to moral decline.

The united states' war on drugs has failed miserably, billions are spent each year to no avail whatsoever. The result? Hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders who's only crime was lighting up a doobie are sent to prison as SWAT teams raid houses and shoot the place up for possession of some weed paraphernalia. No other nation locks up such a high percentage of its own population as the United States. It's madness. I'm from the Netherlands, here we have decided that the police has much better things to do than to lock up teenagers who want to get a little high. We haven't in fact legalized it, we just have an understanding that it's a waste of time and money to enforce strict anti drug laws when it comes to soft drugs like weed being used in a coffee shop or someone's basement. Hard drugs though are still very much illegal.

Please stop putting the burden of proof on the negative side. Actually, a lot of people think that CO2 is the independent variable and that global temperatures are the dependent, but I personally think it's the other way around i.e. CO2 is the dependent and global temperatures are the independent. I asked for peer reviewed science to back your claims up since you're going to counter to the prevailing consensus among climate scientists while you are a non-scientist yourself. Should I just take you at your word? If you're the one going against 96% of climate scientists, you better have some peer reviewed science to back you up. Because that's how the consensus was established in the first place, peer reviewed science based on multiple lines of evidence. I'd say the same if you voiced an opinion that runs counter to the opinions of 96% of geologists or astronomers. That's why there is a consensus among scientists about relativity, a consensus about tectonic plate theory and a consensus about big bang cosmology. I ask again, what peer reviewed science papers can you point to in support of your views. Otherwise you're just another lay person with a completely meaningless opinion.

I see no need to have an emotional investment of any kind in surviving death or being ruled over by an invisible wizard who has nothing better to do than punish me for all eternity if I put my penis in the wrong place.

Could you direct me to the peer reviewed scientific literature you got this information from?

I'd like to know that as well First off, people getting hit by meteorites is extremely rare with only one or two cases ever really confirmed. Secondly, having a premonition come true is even rarer still as there is no scientific evidence to suggest such a thing is even possible.

It's pretty simple, when it comes to science, schools should teach basic well established scientific theories which have have become accepted by the vast overwhelming majority of the scientific community. New ideas are invented, examined and tested in the scientific arena. No one rushed to get big bang cosmology and plate tectonics into the classroom while they were still largely hypothetical. A high school classroom isn't the place to decide which ideas are correct and which aren't just because some people have a prior commitment to a belief or ideology which conflicts with modern science. That's what started this whole creationism in schools mess. For most creationists the idea that god created everything as it is stated in the bible is non-negotiable, it HAS to be true, to them is is true by default and there exists no possibility that it isn't. They can never ever be convinced otherwise, every piece of evidence you show them and they'll just find a way to rationalize it away. They don't do research, they don't publish in peer reviewed journals, most of the time they don't even understand the very theory they're arguing against (the most fun thing you can do with a creationist is ask them to define the theory of evolution.) And the high profile creationists have demonstrated again and again that deception and dishonesty is an acceptable tactic as long as it helps convert people to the faith. And we should teach their ideas in a science classroom?

Sorry but evolution is a fact. Modern day evolutionary theory explains that fact. That atoms exist is a fact, atomic theory explains how they work. That germs cause disease is a fact, the germ theory of disease explains how it happens. Gravity is a fact, Einstein's theory of general relativity explains how it works. Continental drift is a fact, plate tectonic theory explains how it works. And I could go on and on and on, are you beginning to see the relationship between scientific theories and facts? Theories explain facts. Why is this done only with evolution? Why can't students make up their own mind on gravitation? And let them believe in geocentricism if they want to. Why not do the same with Newtonian physics? Let students make up their own minds whether F = ma How about chemistry? Let the students decide for themselves if molecules and atoms exist or not. Why not the same with geology? Let the students decide for themselves whether or not plate tectonic exist. Why only do this for evolution which is one of the best supported theories we have in science today? Science is decided in the scientific community, in peer reviewed papers based on research and evidence. Not in a high school classroom. By doing stuff like this we're sending the message that you can decide for yourself what reality is, hey anything that makes you feel good right?

Where do you get this? Danielsangeo listed a whole bunch of other dating methods, where on earth did you read they're rarely if ever used? You say this, but simply asserting it as to be true doesn't mean it is. Because it was tested by comparing the results from carbon dating to results gained from other dating methods. I explained this. http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/radiocarbon.htm That is why calibration is done using objects of known age (acquired through different dating methods) from different time periods Also the article you provided is about how atomic bomb testing introduced extra amounts of C14 into the atmosphere. As well as extra C12 since the industrial revolution. It does not state that therefore any object from before this period cannot be dated accurately anymore. http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A637418 Videos: - Age of the world made easy. - "Carbon dating doesn't work!" - Debunked.

In other words younger stuff can have a lower C14 rating than older stuff, and since we don't know what caused the obvious increase that we were declining from, we can't know when it happened or how it has affected fossils/etc and their C14 rating. In much fewer words, C14 dating is inaccurate, and can't be fixed in the foreseeable future. Why are creationists always so transfixed on carbon dating? It only goes back 50.000 years which is an incredibly minuscule slice of time on the geological time scale. Since you basically did a huge copy/paste on the first page I think I'm allowed a simple copy/paste as well In other words, scientists calibrate carbon dating by using other dating methods. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html In fact I suggest you check out this entire website and see if your favorite arguments are in here. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

Which part is? I have the potential to be a great scientist like a lot of people if the interest is there, one just needs to be a good and ambitious student. However this is not a field I want to dedicate my life and future to. I meant it was good you admitted that.

Most models state that time didn't exist before the big bang. This is because general relativity was a result of the expansion. People often want to apply a cause to the big bang, but even if this seems reasonable, you need to understand that in a state of being without general relativity, everyday concepts like "cause and effect" don't apply. It's confusing, I agree. Why would a Big Bang happen though. Why didn't the ball just stay a ball of energy and matter. This is the confusing part. That action or force that made the Big Bang expand would be god to me. I think god in the end is really the same thing as purpose and reason. What do you think? Is the non-believer position that it just happened and there is no explanation for it? I'm not mocking, I'm seriously considering and comparing. Wouldn't the action still be there. Wouldn't the action be god anyway? So how is atheism possible? I want to hear some answers. It seems to me there is a god in any case to everyone's philosophy even if you are atheist. :/ I want to ask you a question first. How exactly do you justify drawing a positive conclusion (a prime mover in your case) from a lack of data? Why is "a god did it" a better position than simply saying "I don't know"

Good. Now I can apologize for being an ass about it

Maybe you should write a scientific paper on that and submit it to nature or science?

The term pro-life is a misnomer anyway. These people are merely anti-abortion. You'll find that most people who identify themselves as pro-life are social conservatives who, in general, do not have any qualms with going to war or the death penalty.

Just here to fan the flames a little. http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_5270b430-87e9-11e0-a9e5-001cc4c002e0.html Just another reason not to mix nuts and guns

The thing is, natural climate change is always caused by a number of factors. It does not just appear like magic. Variations in earth's orbit, precession and solar output are called trigger effects. These effects each on their own are not enough to produce significant changes in climate. However, they are enough to get the ball rolling. After such triggers, positive feedback effects come into play, such as the release of greenhouse gases such as CO2. This is why in past natural climate change CO2 seems to lag behind temperature, this is because it is a positive feedback effect, not a trigger in natural climate change. One of the properties of CO2 is that it absorbs heat, CO2 will always do this whether it is released naturally or through human activities. The chemical properties of CO2 will not change based on how it is released into the atmosphere. Today we observe a warming trend so there should be something causing it. Now scientists are not the idiots that some armchair "experts" from google university seem to think. Astronomers know earth's orbital quirks very well, they also know about earth's precession. So we can actively predict these trigger effects. And we have established that these effects are not in play, they won't be for thousands of years. What about solar output? Scientists have been measuring something called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) for decades, has there been an increase in TSI which correlates with the warming trend we are detecting? It is still a subject of ongoing study but much work has been done. It seems at best the sun can account for about 14% of the observed warming. Like I said earlier, CO2 will always absorb heat and we've been pumping extra CO2 into the atmosphere on top of the natural CO2 cycle. To say this has no effect whatsoever is to deny basic physics. CO2 is also an important regulator in the control of water vapor, which also acts as a greenhouse gas. CO2 and water vapor form what is called a positive feedback loop. An increase in CO2 increases evaporation, which leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases temperature. Of course this also leads to increased precipitation. So it's not JUST CO2, the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere causes feedback effects which increase the effects. Is climate very complex with all these intertwined factors and effects? Yes. Do we know everything? No, more study is always needed. Is there a chance climatologists are wrong? Yes, in science nothing is ever 100% sure. Does not being 100% sure mean we know absolutely nothing? Of course not, we can't just dismiss the things we do know. What's important here is that we let the scientists do what they're good at, science. Do a couple of non-scientists, who never read a peer reviewed science paper in their entire lives, sitting in a bar drinking beer complaining about how it's just another scheme by the "gub'mint" to control and tax people even more add anything useful to the debate? Do I even have to answer that?

"Monkey on a stick! We're getting fingered by godzilla!" "If you can't take the heat, get out of the rocket propulsion test chamber! *laughter* Burn! Burn burn....Physics rules." "I HAVE to blow everything up! It's the only way to prove I'm not crazy!"

I have no clue how or why I started watching Freeman's mind. I don't remember for some reason. I'm just glad I did.

Though I do not agree with you I find the fact you're admitting you have no evidence and you aren't stating your position with absolute certitude, to be laudable. It is very rare for people to come out and say that. So instead of starting an argument, I'll just tell you to have a nice day

+ Respect. That's all I can say really.

Since you made it clear this is your last word on it I'll refrain from further engaging you. I will however leave you this link http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html As I said before, science can only approach truth asymptotically. Are we 100% sure? No. No scientist worth his salt will ever claim absolute 100% certainty.