Skull Valley lawmaker wants both side...

Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students

There are 1632 comments on the Verde Independent story from Feb 5, 2013, titled Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students. In it, Verde Independent reports that:

Saying students are getting only one side of the debate, a state senator wants to free teachers to tell students why they believe there is no such thing human-caused "global warming.' The proposal by Sen.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Verde Independent.

Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#356 Feb 20, 2013
The Sub Duc was asked to specify a real world experiment out of his list of scholarly papers containing the words "experiments global warming."
I proved what I said. Now it's his turn.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#357 Feb 20, 2013
Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Name any reproducible experiment that proves biological evolution.
Not a problem. Here's lotsa stuff for ya:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#358 Feb 20, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't it shocking that Sub Duc merely searched for a few keywords (experiments on global warming) and thinks that's a compelling argument?
Isn't it shocking how you merely appealed to your massive martyr complex in the face of overwhelming scientific support AGAINST your position?
Shubee wrote:
Actually, spontaneous quantum creationism is no longer an esoteric concept that is only appreciated and taught by mathematical physicists. The concept is now acknowledged to be real science in the popular culture. There is plenty of experimental support for quantum theory. Quantum creationism is just an esoteric corollary.
There is zero science to support creationism no matter how much you lie and pretend quantum physics demonstrates invisible Jewish magic.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#359 Feb 20, 2013
Jimbo wrote:
Name any reproducible experiment that proves biological evolution.
I find this a compelling experimental tests of evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-ter...

No evidence for creationism, so far.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#360 Feb 20, 2013
Shubee wrote:
The Sub Duc was asked to specify a real world experiment out of his list of scholarly papers containing the words "experiments global warming."
I proved what I said. Now it's his turn.
Wrong, look at the original quote by Brian_G. I responded to that.

Until you admit you were OBVIOUSLY wrong in your claim I will not go on to the next question. If you are going to deny something that is so blatantly obvious as the mistake you made in insisting there was no experimental science supporting the concept of carbon sequestration and AGW then you would simply deny any experiment that was done on it.

So the ball is still in your court Booby, were you wrong or not in your post where you agreed with Brian_G?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#361 Feb 20, 2013
Drew wrote:
<quoted text>
In order for a hypothesis to be considered a valid theory, it must be confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Has macro evolution (all plants, animals, and people descendant from a single ancestor) ever been tested and proven through repeated experimental tests? NO! Then why do we teach it to our children as a law of nature? In doing so we are teaching our children not to think critically with an open mind and thus we stifle innovation and valid scientific research.
The religion of Darwinism satisfies a very important emotional need. I never said it was true.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#362 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no evidence man made carbon dioxide causes catastrophic climate change; climate change mitigation is a hoax.
Climate science has failed because it hasn't tested the theory it promotes to save the Earth. Computer models aren't good enough to describe climate, let alone to describe how to mitigate climate change.
You Sir are a genius.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#363 Feb 20, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You Sir are a genius.
Please don't quote Brian_G again that way. I am sure that he realizes what his mistake was now. He has a chance of learning. I know, I used to think the same way.

You on the other hand are a hopeless turd.
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#364 Feb 20, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You Sir are a genius.
LOL.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#365 Feb 20, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>The religion of Darwinism satisfies a very important emotional need. I never said it was true.
Of course. That's because "Darwinism" is the creationist straw-man for "evil atheistic totally randomness from nothing and nothing else", and it satisfies the VERY important emotional need for creationists to invent a fictional boogey-man that doesn't exist in order to deny the reality of evolution.
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#366 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no evidence man made carbon dioxide causes catastrophic climate change; climate change mitigation is a hoax.
Climate science has failed because it hasn't tested the theory it promotes to save the Earth. Computer models aren't good enough to describe climate, let alone to describe how to mitigate climate change.
NO WAY!

BG: There's no evidence man made carbon dioxide causes catastrophic climate change;

ME: PROVE IT!

BG: climate change mitigation is a hoax.

ME: PROVE IT.

BG: Climate science has failed

ME: PROVE IT.

BG: because it hasn't tested the theory

ME: PROVE IT.

BG: it promotes to save the Earth.

ME: PROVE IT.

BG: Computer models aren't good enough to describe climate,

ME: PROVE IT.

BG: let alone to describe how to mitigate climate change.

ME: PROVE IT.
Jimbo

Salt Lake City, UT

#367 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I find this a compelling experimental tests of evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-ter...
No evidence for creationism, so far.
Mutations which lead to adaptation, termed adaptive mutations, can readily fit within a creation model where adaptive mechanisms are a designed feature of bacteria allowing them to survive in a fallen world.8 Since E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. This does not require the addition of new genetic information or functional systems (there are no known “additive” mechanisms). Instead degenerative events are likely to have occurred resulting in the loss of regulation and/or specificity. It is possible that the first mutations or potentiating mutations (at generation 20,000) were either slightly beneficial or neutral in their effect.

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#368 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I find this a compelling experimental tests of evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-ter...
No evidence for creationism, so far.
You don't seem able to provide the experiment that the creationists demand, brian.

They call AGW science pseudoscience, and demand an experiment to prove evolution is real.

You claim it is, yet you can't produce the experiment to prove it.

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#369 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I find this a compelling experimental tests of evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-ter...
No evidence for creationism, so far.
What's this? Claims of missing data and rigged computer models?

Is there a pattern here in the way the right attacks science it doesn't want to believe?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Lenski
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#371 Feb 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
What's this? Claims of missing data and rigged computer models?
Is there a pattern here in the way the right attacks science it doesn't want to believe?
Conservapedia? Seriously?

Bub, I've already provided at least *some* of the evidence for evolution, which included, oh... only several BILLION facts to support it.

And I've hardly even mentioned ERV's yet.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#372 Feb 20, 2013
Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutations which lead to adaptation, termed adaptive mutations, can readily fit within a creation model where adaptive mechanisms are a designed feature of bacteria allowing them to survive in a fallen world.8 Since E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. This does not require the addition of new genetic information or functional systems (there are no known “additive” mechanisms). Instead degenerative events are likely to have occurred resulting in the loss of regulation and/or specificity. It is possible that the first mutations or potentiating mutations (at generation 20,000) were either slightly beneficial or neutral in their effect.
When you cut and paste your responses from a source/s that is not "you", the honest thing to do is to give proper citation for the source/s used. Oh... wait... you're arguing the creationist view, so honesty is your enemy. nevermind

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#373 Feb 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Conservapedia? Seriously?
Bub, I've already provided at least *some* of the evidence for evolution, which included, oh... only several BILLION facts to support it.
And I've hardly even mentioned ERV's yet.
I quoted it because it uses the same arguments against evolution that AGW deniers uses: supposedly missing data and manipulated models (remember Climategate?)

The techniques of AGW denial are borrowed from creationism.

Something that brian illustrates perfectly.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#374 Feb 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
I quoted it because it uses the same arguments against evolution that AGW deniers uses: supposedly missing data and manipulated models (remember Climategate?)
The techniques of AGW denial are borrowed from creationism.
Something that brian illustrates perfectly.
Yep, and when I realized that I was on my way to no longer believing the people who deny that AGW is a serious problem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#375 Feb 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
I quoted it because it uses the same arguments against evolution that AGW deniers uses: supposedly missing data and manipulated models (remember Climategate?)
The techniques of AGW denial are borrowed from creationism.
Something that brian illustrates perfectly.
Ah, my bad. Poe's law doth apply.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#377 Feb 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
You don't seem able to provide the experiment that the creationists demand, brian. They call AGW science pseudoscience, and demand an experiment to prove evolution is real.
You claim it is, yet you can't produce the experiment to prove it.
I don't know what "experiment that creationists demand", Fair Game would might know.

There are no experiments on man made greenhouse gases showing any climate change.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Dogen 162,356
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr Dogen 577
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr 15th Dalai Lama 76,822
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 13 hr Dogen 4,275
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 17 hr Simon 13,743
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Tue John 32,164
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Jul 16 The FACTory 221,745
More from around the web