Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Climate change skepticism seeps into science classrooms
latimes ^ | January 16, 2012 | By Neela Banerjee, Washington Bureau

Posted on 01/17/2012 12:28:44 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Some states have introduced education standards requiring teachers to defend the denial of man-made global warming. A national watchdog group says it will start monitoring classrooms.

Reporting from Washington—

A flash point has emerged in American science education that echoes the battle over evolution, as scientists and educators report mounting resistance to the study of man-made climate change in middle and high schools.

Although scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly, the issue has grown so politicized that skepticism of the broad scientific consensus has seeped into classrooms.

Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.

In May, a school board in Los Alamitos, Calif., passed a measure, later rescinded, identifying climate science as a controversial topic that required special instructional oversight.


"Any time we have a meeting of 100 teachers, if you ask whether they're running into pushback on teaching climate change, 50 will raise their hands," said Frank Niepold, climate education coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who meets with hundreds of teachers annually. "We ask questions about how sizable it is, and they tell us it is [sizable] and pretty persistent, from many places: your administration, parents, students, even your own family."

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; climategate; climategate2; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 01/17/2012 12:28:52 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; landsbaum; Signalman; NormsRevenge; steelyourfaith; Lancey Howard; ...
From JoNova (Australia) regarding this report:

Love it: Skeptics winning in the classrooms

*******************EXCERPT************************

“Climate change skepticism seeps into science classrooms”

The LA Times laments the loss of the totalitarian educational view — pity the poor students subjected to hearing both sides of the story:

Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.

In May, a school board in Los Alamitos, Calif., passed a measure, later rescinded, identifying climate science as a controversial topic that required special instructional oversight.

The news itself is interesting, but sadly viewed through the usual green-colored glasses.

Is it “reporting” or a propaganda piece? Let’s check the three boxes:

Box 1: One half of the story is reduced to Orwellian nonsense. Tick yes! — who, exactly, teaches children to deny we have a climate? Johnny, there are no clouds… Which state passes resolutions declaring that the climate does not change? Henceforth California will be 78…

Box 2: Look for the Mandatory Ritual Pean: “scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly”. Tick two! Ritual complete. Notice that daring sweeping conclusion, of course, is backed by pffft-puffery-nothin’. (Yes we believe that driving causes droughts, and heaters cause hurricanes. Storms are coming, switch off your air-con to save the world!)

Box Three: Find spurious tenuous associations of one view of climate change to a/ Tobacco-propaganda, b/ creationism or c/ Big-oil-profits. Tick b and c. Yessity yes. (How did they manage to leave out the tobacco slur?)

Despite the propaganda, the news is good news. The people are not fooled.

“Any time we have a meeting of 100 teachers, if you ask whether they’re running into pushback on teaching climate change, 50 will raise their hands,” said Frank Niepold, climate education coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who meets with hundreds of teachers annually. “We ask questions about how sizable it is, and they tell us it is [sizable] and pretty persistent, from many places: your administration, parents, students, even your own family.”

You’ve gotta love it.

 

But look out for the “New national science standards for grades K-12 (which) are due in December.” Since they are based on standards from the National Academy of Sorcery, we know logic, reason and evidence will need all the help they can get.

2 posted on 01/17/2012 12:32:34 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

WE WILL FORCE YOU TO ACCEPT OUR POLITICAL SCIENCE PHILOSOPHY.

WE HAVE ALL THE STATISTICS WE NEED TO PROVE ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT WE WANT.

WE WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY SKETICISM AT ALL.

THE GREAT LEADER IS WATCHING.


3 posted on 01/17/2012 12:33:53 PM PST by dirtymac (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country., Really! NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The three page site here should be required reading for all students, grades K through 12, even if the teacher has to read it to them.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

One of the pages is the Global Warming Test It is the extra fun part: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html


4 posted on 01/17/2012 12:34:57 PM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

b t t t


5 posted on 01/17/2012 12:36:52 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Although scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly

Liberals always say this, but never offer any facts to support it.

They don't even acknowledge the actual facts that: 1) 30,000 scientists have signed a petition arguing against AGW, 2) Climategate I and II have demolished the integrity of the "science" behind AGW, 3) the IPCC reports have been proven to be both inaccurate and fraudulent, 4) no AGW-believing scientist has dared to publicly debate any scientist or expert who disagrees with AGW, 5) global temperature has not risen for 15 years, and 6) the original data used by AGW proponents doesn't even exist so that it can be checked by other scientists.

If they don't even acknowledge, let alone address, these actual facts, why should anybody take these "scientists" seriously?

6 posted on 01/17/2012 12:39:03 PM PST by Maceman (Obama: As American as nasei goreng)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

“Although scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly...”

Actually, there is no “scientific evidence” showing any such thing. There are some opinions and some data. But none of it withstands actual “scientific” scrutiny.


7 posted on 01/17/2012 12:39:27 PM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

One would find it easy to debate “Man made Global Warming”, in that all you would have to do is show the ‘evidence’ that has been found to be fraudlent.

Hockey Stick graph? Fraud
Data manipulation and raw data permanetnly ERASED
Emails denouncing Global Warming and asking how to pertunate the fraud, were exposed

Everything they predicted to happen, hasn’t. The data they proported to show what was happening was found to be fraudlent.

To disprove a case; you first have to make a case (without fraud).


8 posted on 01/17/2012 12:39:45 PM PST by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The intent of this article is to make skeptics sound like creationists.

While creationism has some merits, it has been effectively ridiculed to the point that these merits are ignored. This article seems to try discount AGW skeptics, not by discussing the issues or the crumbling basis for AGW, but by making it sound like teachers are being forced (”seeps into the classroom”) to address just another unscientific issue.


9 posted on 01/17/2012 12:50:25 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

This indoctrination into ONE WORLDVIEW-—the Marxist one——IS GOING ON IN ALL AREAS OF IDEOLOGY===NOT JUST GLOBAL WARMING.

Curricula is designed to DESTROY MORAL ABSOLUTES—(the idea of God and Right and Wrong and to make the Bible obsolete—as they also do with global warming).....

WE need GOVERNMENT OUT OF EDUCATION—exactly like JS Mill stated-—all government schools do is create slaves for their agendas.

We need to have scientists write textbooks, NOT CAIR and BILLY AYERS Type people. They have an agenda to destroy your children’s minds with cognitive dissonance-——LIES stated as TRUTH. It is how they create useful idiots===fill kids with lies and half-truths and “FEELINGS” instead of intellectual knowledge and wisdom and the idea that intellect needs to overrule passions in a Rule of Law society.

GET Back to Natural Law Theory-—Justice, Truth, Duty, Temperance-—etc., CLASSICAL EDUCATION and dump the “God is Dead” postmodernism of Marx, and Lenin and Stalin and Hitler and Pot.

We need a STANDARD of Right and Wrong-—for RULES-—and it comes from the BIBLE-—it was FROM the BIBLE until the postmodernists kicked out GOD and put in Barney Frank and Odin and Satan-—as standard for Right and Wrong which they indoctrinate kids with. OUR natural rights come from GOD-—NOT Barney Frank. He sent us a list of Right and Wrong—and we used to follow it until the leftists wanted to eliminate God from everything—to create slaves and drudges and dysfunctional people and neglected kids who become obummer thugs.


10 posted on 01/17/2012 12:54:42 PM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; TEXOKIE; ELVISNIXON.com; SunkenCiv; E. Pluribus Unum; CharlyFord; ...
I received a draft of a resolution in opposition to Agenda 21 that has allegedly been passed by the RNC. I am trying to verify and will print it if I can substantiate. My communication said it is being sent to county officers for inclusion in local and state platforms.

If anyone else has seen it, let me know.

11 posted on 01/17/2012 1:03:55 PM PST by Baynative (The penalty for not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

If they don’t repudiate, Sustainable Development, ICLEI, Smart Growth, Liveable Communities... all in the same resolution, then it’s meaningless.


12 posted on 01/17/2012 1:12:24 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Ok.. I got all 10 questions right..

What did I win?

:0)


13 posted on 01/17/2012 1:19:44 PM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I think opposition to Agenda 21 naturally includes the elements contained within.

I'm still working on verifying where it came from. I'll print it when I know I haven't been duped.

14 posted on 01/17/2012 1:24:30 PM PST by Baynative (The penalty for not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kidd

AGW and evolution controversies are worldview fights,

and it appears that the left is trying to marginalize AGW skeptics as they have Darwinism skeptics.

How soon will it be before any teaching of AGW skepticism is challenged by the ACLU as “bringing religion into the classroom”?


15 posted on 01/17/2012 1:25:37 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

only 50? it should be 100% pushback.

the evidence is DECREASING not increasing.

NPR had a pure propaganda piece which had a fluff scientist saying the “there is no debating” meme.

Those 50 who are not getting pushback are doing their jobs wrong and should be fired.


16 posted on 01/17/2012 1:38:00 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

> broad scientific consensus

What the blazes is that? Science, thet is true sience, is based on facts not opinions. Junk science is based on consensus.


17 posted on 01/17/2012 1:38:21 PM PST by BuffaloJack (Defeat Obama. End Obama's War On Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

It is the evidence of the long ages of the Earth and the massive changes in climate over those long ages that is the best evidence against mankind being the driving force behind climate change.

If you throw out all that evidence in favor of a religious dogma of a few thousand year old Earth - you lose a lot of value - including the data that shows the climate changing long before mankind came around.


18 posted on 01/17/2012 1:40:14 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position.
Since it is a valid scientific position, it certainly should be presented as one.
19 posted on 01/17/2012 1:45:35 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Massive changes in climate over “short” periods of time when man was not burning fossil fuels wouldn’t be evidence against man-caused climate change?

OK.

“climate changing before mankind came around” is assuming the consequent, ie, begging the question.


20 posted on 01/17/2012 1:49:06 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MrB
No, the evidence is that back when the ocean covered the Midwest of the U.S.A. there were no people around - HECK! the evidence is that there were no placental mammals around!

Amusing! Only a creationist would insist that the evidence of changing climate over millions of years are completely wrong! It was actually massive change in climate over only a few thousand years.

I suppose the adaptation of land mammals to the latest Ice Age all happened in a short period of time also?

Wouldn't that be evidence of very rapid evolution?

21 posted on 01/17/2012 2:05:37 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The New Science Classroom Battleground: Climate Change

What they found were some clear parallels between evolution and climate science. Because of these similarities, the NCSE has decided that their past experience can be helpful. “The anti-climate change controversy is about where the antievolution controversy was 20 years ago,” Scott told Ars. “We’ve learned a lot—we including the scientific community—dealing with the evolution controversy and, with luck, maybe we can get ahead of this.” One of the things they’ve learned is that the “deficit model”—the idea that people don’t like the science because they don’t understand it—doesn’t really apply. “You’re not going to be effective if you are talking about only throwing more science at people who hold different views from you—you have to deal with the ideological component as well,” Scott said. “Our experience with that will hopefully be useful.”

Read This one!

22 posted on 01/17/2012 2:05:48 PM PST by Afronaut (It's 1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

.


23 posted on 01/17/2012 2:12:58 PM PST by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

>Absence of evidence = evidence of absence? Really?

>It’s funny, the “creationists” that you so deride have studied and given serious consideration to BOTH your interpretation of the evidence and the contrary interpretations of the same evidence. You cannot say the same, and are thus reduced to basically name calling.

Adaptation of land animals since the post-flood ice age?
Absolutely, and why not? Such ability was created in the animals from the start.

>Would that be evidence of very rapid “evolution”?
Yes, if by “evolution” you mean “change”, but to say this is some sort of proof of millions of years, goo-to-you evolution is silly and an obvious application of the logical fallacies of conflation and equivocation.


24 posted on 01/17/2012 2:22:39 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MrB
It is impossible for a creationist to give serious consideration to ANY interpretation of ANY evidence that goes against their a priori theological assumptions. Otherwise they wouldn't be creationists.

I have given the more consideration than is due to the religiously motivated hypothesis that the long ages of the Earth and the massive changes in climate we can see the evidence for over that time all happened within the last few thousand years.

There is simply no way to divorce the evidence of the change in climate with the evidence that these changes took place many MILLIONS of years ago.

Sort of like asking people to take you seriously that that items found in ancient Egypt were all made within the last fifty years, but you can still somehow tell a lot about ancient Egypt by studying them!

So HOW would this ability to rapidly change be “created in” “from the start”?

The evidence of HOW is that DNA is mutable, and that natural selection acts upon variations such that those that lead to better reproductive outcomes (warm fur in an Ice Age) will predominate in subsequent generations.

Amusing that creationists claim to not accept evolution - until they need animals to rapidly change in response to a rapid Ice Age - or rapidly differentiate from those few species that could fit on a boat - and then they accept evolution at a speed and with a power well beyond that ever proposed by evolutionary biology - just so long as you don't CALL IT the dreaded “e” word!

Hilarious!

25 posted on 01/17/2012 2:48:44 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Neela. Your statement about science consensus increasing that global warming is caused by man is LAUGHABLE. Neela. Why do you think the skeptics are growing in number and the warmists are collasping faster than al gore can change into his hollywood disquise before gasing up his SUV. One clue Neela. IT WAS ALL BASED ON A POLITICAL SCAM. Neela, try learning a little about the subject before writing an article.


26 posted on 01/17/2012 3:09:16 PM PST by spawn44 (NSWWER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

There is a huge difference between species adaptation (evolution), and the ORIGIN OF A SPECIES. Which by the way is what Darwin was claiming with his THEORY of evolution. Hence the title to his book The Origin of Species.

I do not think it is unreasonable for a species to adapt in a few thousand years to genetic or environmental pressures. Creationism and this evolution or intelligent design are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I remain open minded, which is more than can be said for most of those who believe in Darwin’s THEORY.

But, according to Darwin, this is only a small part of this THEORY. He believed that an entirely new species would emerge from this so called evolution.

If you are going to ridicule people’s religious beliefs, yours had better be above reproach. And yes, fervent and uncompromising belief in the THEORY of evolution is no different than any other religious fanatic. Since it is at best an unproven theory, how do you pretend to be superior to those who do not agree with you, and believe me, your posts convey exactly that sentiment.


27 posted on 01/17/2012 4:10:17 PM PST by BizBroker (Democrats- Don't want 'em, Don't need 'em, Can't use 'em, Couldn't afford 'em if I did!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Baynative.


28 posted on 01/17/2012 4:21:23 PM PST by SunkenCiv (FReep this FReepathon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrB

AGW is a religion. The proponents bow to the icons of Karl Marx and Gaia.


29 posted on 01/17/2012 4:30:59 PM PST by a fool in paradise (SecofState Clinton applauded when a POW named Gaddaffi was murdered in captivity & his body defiled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Whoops, thanks Ernest! [blush]


30 posted on 01/17/2012 4:41:49 PM PST by SunkenCiv (FReep this FReepathon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BizBroker
The theory that Darwin postulated is, apparently, the ONLY explanation for HOW a species can adapt.

Speciation, the arising of new species from existing species, is a consequence of evolution. The result of speciation is species that share a common ancestor some time in the past.

Apparently, when Creationists need them to, animals have an amazing ability to evolve and speciate - such that every species that exists could have come from those few that could fit on a boat within the last few thousand years.

So yes, they are not mutually exclusive - creationists apparently believe in speciation and evolution at a speed and power well beyond what evolutionary biology proposes - when they need it to happen, and so long as you don't call it evolution too much!

My Christianity has very little to do with scientific theory. No theory is ever proven they are all “unproven theory”.

The reason science is superior to creationism is that a theory allows for accurate prediction and useful application - while creationism leads nowhere and is useless.

31 posted on 01/17/2012 4:45:49 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Dr. Bogus Pachysandra; grey_whiskers; ApplegateRanch; Whenifhow; WL-law; ...
Thanx for the ping Ernest_at_the_Beach !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

32 posted on 01/17/2012 9:40:37 PM PST by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Wow... from reading your screed, I see the wisdom of the ages - that there are none so blind as those that will not see. So many strawmen, misrepresentations, assumptions, and just willful blindness.

It’s not up to me to convince you, that’s the job of the Holy Spirit.

As for giving consideration to the scientific interpretations of the evidence through the lens of creation instead of through the lens/assumptions of millions/billions of years & evolution, you’re simply lying to yourself, not to us, we can see through it. Ever read a book by Dr John Morris, for instance?
I suppose you assume that you’re smarter than all the PhD physicists, astrophysicists, biologists, geologists, hydrodynamic engineers and others that are creation scientists.

And your blindness cannot be any more evident in your “amusement” about distinguishing a difference between rapid adaptive ability of species and goo to you “evolution”.

Really? Do you really believe that the adaptation of, say, a polar bear somehow proves that goo through millions of years became you? Do you see how amusing THAT is?

This line was especially revealing of your blinders:
“So HOW would this ability to rapidly change be “created in” “from the start”?”


33 posted on 01/18/2012 5:34:14 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Your inability to answer is especially revealing of your ignorance.

You say that such ability to adapt is created in from the start - but you don't understand what is changing to allow the adaptation.

I am unconvinced on scientific matters by the influence of the Holy Spirit. But it is illustrative that you seek such guidance on physical material matters from immaterial theological sources.

Appeal to authority? The authority of a small and unproductive group of religious kooks who managed to earn scientific credentials instead of the reasonable evidence based science of actual scientists? Not likely!

If you look to the Holy Spirit for conclusive evidence about the physical world you have led yourself into the dead end of creationism that leads nowhere and produces nothing of any value.

If you look to the scientific method for conclusive evidence about the physical world you can discover new information and a WEALTH of knowledge and useful application.

Science is of use.

Creationism is useless.

34 posted on 01/18/2012 7:47:52 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Thus my nick for you, “strawmendream”.


35 posted on 01/18/2012 8:06:58 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MrB
“When all you have is a hammer problems look like nails.”

Nothing I set up was a strawman, but nice attempt at using actual real logic!

Creationists REALLY DO accept evolution - when they need animals to change rapidly - and so long as you don't call it the dreaded “e” word. It is really quite amusing.

36 posted on 01/18/2012 8:10:50 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Pity that your so ignorant of your opposition that you don’t even KNOW that you’re misrepresenting their argument.

Again, you’ve proven time and again that you don’t, or aren’t even willing to understand what you’re arguing against.

Pyromaniac in a field of strawmen. You’ll “win” that one every time.


37 posted on 01/18/2012 8:20:54 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MrB
After years on these threads I have no need to misrepresent anything.

Creationists say they don't accept evolution - unless they need animals to rapidly change - then it is OK - so long as you don't call it the “e” word.

Creationists say the ability to adapt is “designed in”, but they cannot explain how or how this ability to adapt is not explained by natural selection of genetic variation.

Creationists claim I should rely upon supernatural guidance for determinations of physical reality! That is amusing!

Creationisms is so backwards that one may as well just outright reject that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun - as several FR creationists do!

No strawman needed, the creationists posters on FR are kooky and deranged and deluded enough that I need not waste a second in attempting to present their views as even MORE kooky deranged and deluded and USELESS.

38 posted on 01/18/2012 8:53:05 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

What is your explanation as to how it is rational to believe that both a male and female of some new species happened to have resulted from an identical mutation at the same location at the same time, survived to adulthood and somehow found each other and successfully mated and reared offspring?

It is statistically impossible.

It’s easy to simply say the word “evolution.” The reality of proving it is an entirely different matter.


39 posted on 01/18/2012 9:26:41 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
How many times do I have to answer the same question from you?

First there is genetic transfer from cell to cell. This is still extant, not some ‘missing link’. Then there is hermaphroditic exchange of genetic material during reproduction among multicellular life forms - once again extant and not at all “missing”.

So there was no need for males and females to develop simultaneously and in isolation, amazing that you have never heard of hermaphrodites.

Did you know that in utero we are still hermaphrodites? That based upon hormone levels one set of genitalia develops (usually) and the other is reabsorbed?

This is a typical creationist fallacy - sort of like asking how the new member of a species could find a mate.

That is as idiotic as asking how the first speaker of Italian born from parents that spoke Latin found someone to talk to.

Do you need me to explain why to you, again?

40 posted on 01/18/2012 9:33:54 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

All hockey stick graphs are frauds. A possible exception is our national debt.


41 posted on 01/18/2012 9:35:43 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

How is it that everyone else thinks a person’s sex is determined by either the X or Y chromosome from the man?


42 posted on 01/18/2012 10:10:12 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
What people think about something and what is actually going on are often at odds.

There are people born XY who have a defect in the gene for testosterone receptors. They develop as infertile females with no secondary body hair, overly large breasts, and slight mental impairment. They have a Y chromosome - but it didn't do them any good because the increase in testosterone production that having the Y chromosome entails wasn't going to help them develop as male.

Do you think there is something more magical happening perchance? That the mere presence of a Y chromosome will have some mystical ‘masculinizing’ effect?

Do you know what DNA does? It isn't magic.

43 posted on 01/18/2012 10:16:42 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Mutants don’t count; especially if they don’t survive to adulthood and mate successfully and produce offspring like themselves. My point is still valid; syllable need a make and female of a new species to reproduce.


44 posted on 01/18/2012 10:23:53 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
Your point is as ludicrous as asking who the first speaker of Italian, born to Latin speakers, had to talk to.

I mean if everyone else spoke Latin, and he spoke Italian - how could anybody understand him?

Do you realize why this scenario is absolutely ludicrous?

When you do make that realization it may help you answer your question and come to the realization that your point has no validity at all.

We are all mutants in some respect. Mutants do count. Non reproductively viable mutations don't pas on - but they do “count” in that only reproductively acceptable mutations can persist within a population.

Parthenogenic animals need no male and female to reproduce. Hermaphrodites don't need for male and female features to develop simultaneously in isolation as your inane strawman suggested.

Do you know what DNA does? It isn't magical.

45 posted on 01/18/2012 10:40:04 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

At one time, it was theorized that the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Then another theory came along stating the opposite, was that theory never proven?

Creationism is no more useless than unproveable theories that “scientists” put their faith in because of nothing other than consensus amongst themselves.


46 posted on 01/18/2012 3:22:55 PM PST by BizBroker (Democrats- Don't want 'em, Don't need 'em, Can't use 'em, Couldn't afford 'em if I did!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BizBroker
There is a great discussion by Asimov on exactly that subject.

The idea of a flat Earth is a reasonable model, it is useful and reasonable accurate at our scale of things. The difference between a round Earth and a flat Earth being a few inches per mile - but over the circumference of the Earth - those inches add up!

A round Earth is a more reasonable model, it is more useful and more accurate. But it is far from being “proved”.

Because you see the Earth is not a sphere so much as it is an oblate spheroid - the oblate spheroid being a more reasonable and more accurate model. But it too is not “proven” - better measurement will refine just how “oblate” our spheroid is.

A scientist need not say that the Bohr model of the atom is “right” or “Truth” or “proven” - only that it is a useful model that leads to accurate prediction.

If a better model were to replace the Bohr model it will not be the case that the Bohr model was “wrong” so much as it was not “correct enough” in comparison to the new model.

Science is of use in gaining reliable information about the physical world and making useful application of that knowledge.

Creationism is of no use leading to no discovery and no further knowledge and no useful application.

47 posted on 01/18/2012 3:34:34 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BizBroker

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Here is the article by Asimov I talked about. I hope you learn from it.


48 posted on 01/18/2012 3:41:56 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Nice post paraphrasing Asimov.

But ye've gone astray little lamb of the intellect. Ye've wandered into the realm of patently anti-truth assertions.

Creationism is of no use leading to no discovery and no further knowledge and no useful application.
I know you have the IQ horsepower to make a number of cases why that is an anti-truth assertion.
49 posted on 01/18/2012 3:49:11 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Creationism has a long and storied history of attempting to explain physical phenomena through supernatural causation. This is of no use because the actions of a supernatural cause cannot be predicted or relied upon replicably.

Meanwhile the scientific method ascribes physical causation to explain physical phenomena, and has led to a wealth of knowledge and useful application.

Science is of use.

Creationism is useless.

50 posted on 01/18/2012 4:02:49 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson