Palin wants creationism taught in schools

[Shogun]

Funny... of all the shows and all the books I have read... never heard neanderthal described as an ape, shogun.... rather an advanced brother/sister species who simply died out for reasons still unknown

a "brother" specie that is STILL different from homo erectus. It's evidence of a common ancestor. No one uses the "ape" jargon except people who are wo wrapped up in the bible to open their ******* eyes to the evidence that our PHYSICAL world provides. Tell me, why did GOD create neanderthal - a brother specie?

 

[Shogun]

No... we are a hominid

A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. This classification has been revised several times in the last few decades. These various revisions have led to a varied use of the word "hominid": the original meaning of Hominidae referred only to the modern meaning of Hominina, i.e. only humans and their closest relatives. The meaning of the taxon changed gradually, leading to the modern meaning of "hominid," which includes all great apes.
Hominid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Caligirl]

This classification has been revised several times in the last few decades.

Some definitions involve chimps... others just the inclusion of now extinct human like species

Would you rather I use a more direct term of hominan?

It sounds like we are on different wavelengths. I will rewind to your comment about neanderthal and try this again.

 

[Shogun]

All of which have no proof or origin.... as stated, shogun... science does not want yyou to think it takes leaps of faith... but it certainly does...


I am no proponent of the 5000 year old 'new earth' theory... and I certainly believe science finds out details and expands our knowledge of the known universe all the time... but... 1) science does quite often get it wrong, very wrong... 2) Science does not explain the unknown universe or the beginning

I personally am all for teaching science and the scientific method... but as stated, I want it stated to kids/students that this is not to try and go against their beliefs. That this is teaching a scientific theory for academics and for the further understanding of the world around us...

It's more EVIDENCE than you'll get from dogma junkies. It doesn't take a leap of ******* faith to OBSERVE our natural environment. THAT is science. Now, please, offer me something that is ******* equivilent to the expanding universe.

weather or not science gets things wrong STILL ignores that it is ******* EVIDENCE that we use to make these decisions. By all means, if you can provide even the slightest ******* offering then do so.


By teaching the SCIENTIFIC METHOD you MUST have physical evidence. METAPHYSICS is not science. Their BELIEFS mean tow things after Francis Bacon: jack and shit.

 

[Caligirl]

Funny... of all the shows and all the books I have read... never heard neanderthal described as an ape, shogun.... rather an advanced brother/sister species who simply died out for reasons still unknown

Shogun was not arguing that neanderthal was a common ancestor. Shogun was providing evidence that there is a fossil record consistent with evolution.

Shogun has also quite insistently asked for evidence of god did it, to drive home the point that there is no evidence for ID, because ID is not science.

 

[Shogun]

And that proves what? That there has been life on the earth for a long time?

It says Nothing about so called evolution.

no, actually, It's a ******* kick in the balls to your opinion that there is no evidence for evolution and the accepted SCIENTIFIC origin of life. But, hey, feel free to offer your OWN evidence for "intelligent design", dude. PLEASE. I WANT to see it.

 

[DiamondDave]

EVIDENCE of an expanding universe, you say? Feast your ******* eyes.

Expanding Universe
Expanding Universe

Big Bang, beginning of the Universe
Big Bang, beginning of the Universe
The universe, as we see it today, is expanding from a widely accepted theoretical event in spacetime called the Big Bang that occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

We have observed that galaxy clusters, including our own, have been receding from each other. A common analogy applied to our expanding universe is of a spotted balloon being blown up. As the balloon expands, so to does the distance between the spots. This increased distance is obviously and evidently true when applied to the many galaxy clusters within our universe.

The Expanding Universe
http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/astro/universe/universe.asp
For thousands of years, astronomers wrestled with basic questions about the size and age of the universe. Does the universe go on forever, or does it have an edge somewhere? Has it always existed, or did it come to being some time in the past? In 1929, Edwin Hubble, an astronomer at Carnegie Observatories, made a critical discovery that soon led to scientific answers for these questions: he discovered that the universe is expanding.


Hubble Measures the Expanding Universe
Hubble Measures the Expanding Universe
May 25, 1999: The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project Team today announced that it has completed efforts to measure precise distances to far- flung galaxies, an essential ingredient needed to determine the age, size and fate of the universe.

Right: A NASA Hubble Space Telescope (HST) view of the magnificent spiral galaxy NGC 4603, the most distant galaxy in which a special class of pulsating stars called Cepheid variables have been found. Researchers found 36-50 Cepheids and used their observed properties to securely determine the distance to NGC 4603. Observations of distant Cepheids such as those in NGC 4603 also help astronomers to precisely measure the expansion rate of the Universe (more information).

Astronomy Picture of the Day

Explanation: Our Universe is expanding. Distant galaxies appear to recede from us at ever-increasing speeds. What is the rate of expansion? How long has it been expanding? What will be its ultimate fate? Two groups of astronomers are searching vigorously for answers to these fundamental questions using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The teams have recently announced conflicting measurements of the Hubble constant, a number which represents the expansion rate of the Universe. Astronomer Wendy Freedman and her collaborators have used pulsating stars called Cepheids to measure the distance to galaxies like the Fornax cluster barred spiral galaxy NGC1365 shown above. The ground based photo (left) shows an inset locating the HST image (right) which Freedman and team have used to identify some 50 Cepheids. Their distance and velocity measurements determine Hubble's constant to be about 80 kilometers per second per megaparsec which means that galaxies one megaparsec (3 million lightyears) distant appear to recede from us at a speed of 80 kilometers per second. Conflicting results indicating a substantially slower expansion rate (smaller Hubble constant) are being reported by astronomer Allan Sandage and collaborators. The value of Hubble's constant was recently the subject of a popular public debate titled "The Scale of the Universe 1996: The Value of Hubble's Constant".
APOD: May 13, 1996 - Hubble's Constant And The Expanding Universe (I)

Astronomy: Exploring the expanding universe
ASTRONOMY - Exploring the Expanding Universe

YOU wanted evidence? Here it is. Now, PLEASE, offer anything that can be said for the evidence of creationism.

No... where is your evidence of the starting point of expansion... where was it expanding in to... how did the original matter then inherently become mass at the quantum level??


All of these are leaps of faith by science, shogun.... they are not proven...

Relativity, string theory. M theory.... .none of it goes into any actual explanation of the beginning... there are ASSumptions abound.... having the scientific method after you take a leap of faith in the beginning does not mean that it is proven, nor does it mean that there was not an assumption or leap of faith involved... which is nothing better than belief in an altered reason for that initial unknown

Again... you just choose to put your FAITH into science as a 'new earth theory' person decides to throw their faith at the literal interpretation of the bible.... it is also that you, like the 'new earth' whackos, has such a hatred of the other side, without any justification for this hatred...

 

[DiamondDave]

Shogun was not arguing that neanderthal was a common ancestor. Shogun was providing evidence that there is a fossil record consistent with evolution.

Shogun has also quite insistently asked for evidence of god did it, to drive home the point that there is no evidence for ID, because ID is not science.

It is consistent with micro-evolution... not macro-evolution... the holes in these theories are indeed many

 

[Shogun]

No... where is your evidence of the starting point of expansion... where was it expanding in to... how did the original matter then inherently become mass at the quantum level??


All of these are leaps of faith by science, shogun.... they are not proven...

Relativity, string theory. M theory.... .none of it goes into any actual explanation of the beginning... there are ASSumptions abound....

Again... you just choose to put your FAITH into science as a 'new earth theory' person decides to throw their faith at the literal interpretation of the bible.... it is also that you, like the 'new earth' whackos, has such a hatred of the other side, without any justification for this hatred...

uh, the EXPANDING UNIVERSE? Have you never seen a ******* explosion before? Heres a little PHYSICAL experiment for you: Go get a firecracker, light it, and see if it explodes FROM the point at which there used to be a firecracker.

It's not leaps of faith just because you dont want to accept what the evidence suggests. Relativity and string theory don't erase the FACT of an observable EXPANDING UNIVERSE. Please, if you have anything else to add I'd love to see your PHYSICAL EVIDENCE against what i've posted.

Showing you a ******* PICTURE is not "faith". By all means, talk shit. I can do that too. Unfortunately for you, you can't seem to offer a single rebuttal in the realm of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

so, in relation to the scientific method, YOU FAIL.

 

[Shogun]

It is consistent with micro-evolution... not macro-evolution... the holes in these theories are indeed many

THEN POST YOUR EVIDENCE OTHERWISE OR STFU. Good grief.. the demonization of actual evidence is not the same as providing your own ******* evidence. Hell, we can get into GEOLOGY next. PHYSIOLOGY. GENETICS and the ******* unique DNA of cellular mitochondria. ALL of which is evidence that you can't offer a rebuttal to in support of creationism.

 

[DiamondDave]

THEN POST YOUR EVIDENCE OTHERWISE OR STFU. Good grief.. the demonization of actual evidence is not the same as providing your own ******* evidence. Hell, we can get into GEOLOGY next. PHYSIOLOGY. GENETICS and the ******* unique DNA of cellular mitochondria. ALL of which is evidence that you can't offer a rebuttal to in support of creationism.

Post your proof of macro evolution... we'll be waiting... you claim it as absolute truth, you have the burden of that proof...


there has been nothing shown of any proof of macro-evolution....

 

[DiamondDave]

uh, the EXPANDING UNIVERSE? Have you never seen a ******* explosion before? Heres a little PHYSICAL experiment for you: Go get a firecracker, light it, and see if it explodes FROM the point at which there used to be a firecracker.

It's not leaps of faith just because you dont want to accept what the evidence suggests. Relativity and string theory don't erase the FACT of an observable EXPANDING UNIVERSE. Please, if you have anything else to add I'd love to see your PHYSICAL EVIDENCE against what i've posted.

Showing you a ******* PICTURE is not "faith". By all means, talk shit. I can do that too. Unfortunately for you, you can't seem to offer a single rebuttal in the realm of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

so, in relation to the scientific method, YOU FAIL.

Again... waiting for your proof of your theory of the beginning that caused the expansion... the leap of faith given to that is as great as a conscious outside force starting the expansion....

 

[Caligirl]

Phylogeny is a better and more mathematical framework to talk about biodiversity, and "micro"evolution results in phylogenetic divergence.

I am content that you accept that evolution occurs, and it also sounds as though you consider that speciation may be the result of evolution.

 

[Shogun]

Post your proof of macro evolution... we'll be waiting... you claim it as absolute truth, you have the burden of that proof...


there has been nothing shown of any proof of macro-evolution....

no, what you SHOULD be doing instead of waiting is looking for EVIDENCE of your own theory instead of pretending that criticism of MY evidence makes yours any kind of equivilent. And no, I claim to have evidence of my theory. Until you can offer anything better, you fail. THAT is the scientific method. Don't like it? take your ass to a theology class.


here.. learn a thing or two about the necessity of EVIDENCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[DiamondDave]

shogun... unlike you... I do not claim to have all the answers to the mysteries of the universe... I do not claim that science has all the answers either... I fully claim it is unknown and that we do not know nor do we have all the means to know (or whether we even have the capacity to know) the facts of the beginning or creation or whatever term you wish to use... I also do not believe that a biblical story or the story of Gilgamesh or whatever outweighs other things... I fully believe religion as a means and guide to live a life... I fully believe in something more than what we observe with our limited senses... I fully believe that there is something beyond a random starting point and expanding gasses.. AND I fully believe that mankind will always look to TRY and explain things, even if we cannot

Unlike you, as a believer in something more, I do not hate science.... you have a complete hatred for anyone and anything related towards belief outside of science... I don't know why and I don't ask why you do... but it is an irrational behavior

 

[Shogun]

Again... waiting for your proof of your theory of the beginning that caused the expansion... the leap of faith given to that is as great as a conscious outside force starting the expansion....

you can wait all you want. MEANWHILE, it's still evolution that pwnes your goofy creationism all day long. Crying about points of origin, DESPITE THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF EXPANSION, doesn't impress anyone..


well, anyone who has a firm grasp on how science works this side of Francis Bacon.

 

[Shogun]

shogun... unlike you... I do not claim to have all the answers to the mysteries of the universe... I do not claim that science has all the answers either... I fully claim it is unknown and that we do not know nor do we have all the means to know (or whether we even have the capacity to know) the facts of the beginning or creation or whatever term you wish to use... I also do not believe that a biblical story or the story of Gilgamesh or whatever outweighs other things... I fully believe religion as a means and guide to live a life... I fully believe in something more than what we observe with our limited senses... I fully believe that there is something beyond a random starting point and expanding gasses.. AND I fully believe that mankind will always look to TRY and explain things, even if we cannot

I never claimed to have "all the answers". Poor guy. Did I beat you into submission already? YOU wnated EVIDENCE. I provided that EVIDENCE. If you can offer the same for creationism then be my guest. PLEASE offer me something beyond the ******* martyr routine and giant ******* croc tears. Your BELIEF, in the face of my posted evidence, means nothing to me. When you can offer PHYSICAL EVIDENCE thereof, then you get a place in the science classroom. Otherwise, this is why creationism loses every time this debate comes up.

 

[DiamondDave]

you can wait all you want. MEANWHILE, it's still evolution that pwnes your goofy creationism all day long. Crying about points of origin, DESPITE THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF EXPANSION, doesn't impress anyone..


well, anyone who has a firm grasp on how science works this side of Francis Bacon.

Again... because of your hatred... you fully think that anyone who believes in more does not believe that the universe is expanding... or that life and organisms has evolved from where it started....

But as stated.. that which you cling to has made and will continue to make many assumptions to try and explain their reasoning... which is not much different than a religious person believing in a God as a starting point for what we know around us...

BTW... I fully read into and study many things about the universe and life.... have for many years.... but it also does not take away from the fact that I have faith in something more beyond the known or observable 'universe'... unlike what your hatred leads you to believe... the 2 are not mutually exclusive

 

[DiamondDave]

I never claimed to have "all the answers". Poor guy. Did I beat you into submission already? YOU wnated EVIDENCE. I provided that EVIDENCE. If you can offer the same for creationism then be my guest. PLEASE offer me something beyond the ******* martyr routine and giant ******* croc tears. Your BELIEF, in the face of my posted evidence, means nothing to me. When you can offer PHYSICAL EVIDENCE thereof, then you get a place in the science classroom. Otherwise, this is why creationism loses every time this debate comes up.

You provided evidence of observation based on an assumed beginning....

sound familiar???

nice try

 

[DiamondDave]

And btw... show me where I supported teaching biblical stories in the classroom?? I fully believe that we teach science, but state that these are theories and that we tell the students that these theories in no way are being taught to go against anyone's faith... that science does not have all the answers, but science is there to constantly search for more answers


but nice try again