Anti-Science Bill Dead For Now

Mar 15, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: okiefunk.com

A bill that essentially attacks the teaching of evolution and the scientific method has apparently died quietly in the legislature, and that's good news for the state's public school students and its overall intellectual community.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of78
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

yall come join the debate ... http://www.topix.com/news/evolution/2013/03/a... .. and also .. http://creation.com/creation-station .. at least hear both sides

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

To date there is only one "side".

Creationists don't seem to know how to do science.

Level 4

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

His-truth wrote:
yall come join the debate ... http://www.topix.com/news/evolution/2013/03/a... .. and also .. http://creation.com/creation-station .. at least hear both sides
There is only one side, science. Until creationists can provide a viable alternative, the overwhelmingly accepted science should be the only thing taught-evolution.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pete-o wrote:
There is only one side, science. Until creationists can provide a viable alternative, the overwhelmingly accepted science should be the only thing taught
I agree that popular science is one-sided but true science offers multiple possibilities. So multiple possibilities should be taught.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that popular science is one-sided but true science offers multiple possibilities. So multiple possibilities should be taught.
Sometimes. Unfortunately for you there is no case to be made for creationism. The holy fear that creationists have of peer review is evidence enough of that.

Level 4

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that popular science is one-sided but true science offers multiple possibilities. So multiple possibilities should be taught.
So you want to crowd science class with every single creation myth?
True science is that which is testable and observed, which exactly describes modern biology as accepted by the huge mass of the scientific community.

What multiple possibilities are you talking about? In modern science we have all the biological sciences, which includes genetics as well. All of which are tied together perfectly by the theory of evolution.

To date, there are no other scientific theories that explain how life evolved.

But if you have one, a Nobel Prize will be waiting for you.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Creationism is obvious for prominent physicists.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pete-o wrote:
True science is that which is testable and observed, which exactly describes modern biology as accepted by the huge mass of the scientific community.
Not exactly. The Common Descent Postulate isn't testable, although it's clear that evolution has happened to some degree.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pete-o wrote:
So you want to crowd science class with every single creation myth?
I see no harm in mentioning the first fundamental theorem of molecular creationism, which is pure physics.

Level 4

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Shubee wrote:
Creationism is obvious for prominent physicists.
Care to elaborate? There aren't even that many physicists who beleive in creationism.
Plus, they are not in the biological sciences.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pete-o wrote:
True science is that which is testable and observed, which exactly describes modern biology as accepted by the huge mass of the scientific community.
Unquestionably, when it comes to the biology of HIV, the huge mass of the scientific community is greatly deceived. If they can't grasp the obvious, why should their judgment be trusted on more complex questions?
http://everythingimportant.org/AZT/

Level 4

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Not exactly. The Common Descent Postulate isn't testable, although it's clear that evolution has happened to some degree.
And what is the Common Descent Postulate?

Level 4

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I see no harm in mentioning the first fundamental theorem of molecular creationism, which is pure physics.
And what is that theorem?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
And what is the Common Descent Postulate?
The Common Descent Postulate is the untestable belief that all organisms have a common ancestor. For example, middle-school children are taught that we are all related to oak trees.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pete-o wrote:
And what is that theorem?
The first fundamental theorem of molecular creationism proves that it is perfectly consistent with all the fundamental laws of physics for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
And what is that theorem?
It looks like it is a Shubert specialty. He is a jerk that got kicked out of the Seventh Day Adventists for being a liar.

Do not go to his website unless you want to be awed by idiocy.

Poor shoob the boob claims to be a professor of math and yet he does not understand the importance of peer review. The one time he did try to get an article peer reviewed it was laughed away by the journal he submitted it to.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pete-o wrote:
Care to elaborate? There aren't even that many physicists who beleive in creationism.
Plus, they are not in the biological sciences.
Scientifically defined, creationism can only mean a fast but fantastically improbable creation of highly organized structures, such as the universe and life itself. According to this definition, Rodger Penrose is a creationist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Subduction Zone wrote:
The one time he did try to get an article peer reviewed it was laughed away by the journal he submitted it to.
Pathetic Sub duc, you believe that the National Academy of Sciences, National Institutes of Health, the FDA, WHO and UNAIDS all respect legitimate science.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Subduction Zone wrote:
It looks like it is a Shubert specialty. He is a jerk that got kicked out of the Seventh Day Adventists for being a liar.
Is that the most impressive lie that you could come up with?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Shubee wrote:
Scientifically defined, creationism can only mean a fast but fantastically improbable creation of highly organized structures, such as the universe and life itself. According to this definition, Rodger Penrose is a creationist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Stephen Hawking also satisfied my definition of a believer in creationism since Hawking says that the universe created itself from nothing. Please note: Since I teach that God is orthogonal to physics, it then follows that I happily acknowledge that a belief in God isn't required to do science.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of78
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••