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

Skip to comments.

Huge crowds extend Darwin exhibit in New York
Yahoo ^ | 3-22-06 | N/A

Posted on 03/22/2006 6:22:07 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser

Huge crowds extend Darwin exhibit in New York

Wed Mar 22, 2:54 PM ET

NEW YORK (AFP) - A monumental Charles Darwin exhibition in New York has been extended by five months amid an overwhelming public response to what was touted as a scholarly rebuke to opponents of teaching evolution in US schools.

The American Museum of Natural History said Wednesday that nearly 200,000 people had visited "Darwin" since it opened three months ago.

Originally slated to close at the end of this month, the exhibition will now run through August 20, said museum spokesman Joshua Schnakenberg.

"Darwin" had opened amid furious debate in many school districts over the teaching of the 19th century naturalist's evolutionary theory and the first trial on the teaching of the God-centered alternative favoured by many religious groups, "intelligent design," or ID.

That trial, in Pennsylvania, ended in defeat for the evangelical right with the judge in the case decrying the "breathtaking inanity" of the school board in the town of Dover which backed the concept that nature is so complex it must be the work of a superior being.

"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom," the judge said in his ruling in December.

An early section of the New York exhibit is devoted to the question, "What is a Theory?" and seeks to clarify the distinction between scientific theories and non-scientific explanations about the origins and diversity of life.

"This is really for the schoolchildren of America. This is the evidence of evolution," said the exhibit's curator, Niles Eldridge.

In a Gallup poll released last October, 53 percent of American adults agreed with the statement that God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.

Thirty-one percent stood by the "intelligent design" stance, while only 12 percent said humans have evolved from other forms of life and "God has no part."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; museum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-361 next last
To: AnnoyedOne; Potowmack
Potowmack: Atheist does not automatically = supporter of the TOE, any more than Christian automatically = believer in Creationism

AnnoyedOne: True, but the ones in each camp who do not do so are so few in number as to be almost non-existant.

You really need to document this. I'd say that the great majority of atheists accept evolution, but I'd also say that a large percentage of biologists (at least in the USA) are theists.

Worldwide, I don't know whether there are more Christian or Muslim creationists. Also, ToE is tolerated by the Catholics, Anglicans, and other large Christian denominations.

So, some stats are in order here.

201 posted on 03/23/2006 10:01:09 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne

So where's the *proof* of Newton's Laws?


202 posted on 03/23/2006 10:04:22 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
Ohm's Law is an example of law that doesn't actually work at all for most substances.

Interesting. I served in the military as a Precision Measuring Electronics (PMEL) Tech, and callibrated oscilloscopes and other test equipment for the guys who worked on the black boxes in fighter aircraft. I bet those fighter jocks would have felt very comfortable knowing that the entire electronics systems within their aircraft were based on mere imagination. I thought you did not believe in such things as magic.

203 posted on 03/23/2006 10:05:36 AM PST by AnnoyedOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne

What process involved in evolution cannot be observed?

Lots of things are readily observable without suggesting the regular phenomena responsible.

People observed apples falling from trees for as long as there have been people, but it took Newton, with his laws of thermodynamics, to describe the universal properties of the motion.

That was just before the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.


204 posted on 03/23/2006 10:05:55 AM PST by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Your description of how the sun rises (the earth rotating away from the sun, etc.) is an observation. It doesn't explain where the earth or sun came from, where the laws came from that govern orbits and rotations, etc.

The sun apparently rising is an observation. The rotation of the earth is an explanation of the observation. We don't directly observe the earth rotate. There's no doubt the explanation begets other questions (why does the earth rotate?, etc); anyone who's talked to a bright four-year old is familiar with the infinite chain of questions and answers. And ultimately we get back to the really fundamental questions of where the universe came from, and so on. We can't yet answer those questions with confidence. But what we can answer are the immediate questions, and the immediate questions all have natural rather than supernatural explanations. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the harder and more distant questions will have natural explanations, and to exclude supernatural explanations, because the imminent problems, without exception, do not have supernatural explanations.

This argument, incidentally, is not mine; it was recently posted on Panda's Thumb by a Christian philosopher by the name of Bob O Connor, who feels that science can exclude ID on pragmatic grounds, and without making any contentious distinctions between science and non science. I found it a persuasive argument, because I worry about demarcation criteria.

You're a chemist. I'm sure you can describe all the elements, their properties, the effects of combining them in different quantities (H2O = water), and so forth. But that's not an explanation for how those elements exist or why they behave the way they do. No one can objectively explain the "whys" of those things.

Actually, I can give you a reasonably good explanation of why some elements exist and others don't; and I can give you excellent ones why they have the properties they have.

205 posted on 03/23/2006 10:11:18 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne

Then you know the difference between impedance and resistance.


206 posted on 03/23/2006 10:11:30 AM PST by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

Good question, actually, since it appears it is not a law at all.. after all, the accelerating expansion of the universe violates it.

I must say, I am suprised that there are so many people who are scared of their children being exposed to various ideas, some of which are purely speculative. I would have thought that those who were confident in their beliefs would be unafraid of having their beliefs challenged... but history has shown that to be untrue time and time again, and a lot of brilliant minds went to the stake for it, so I do not know why I expected any greater enlightenment in thought now.


207 posted on 03/23/2006 10:11:30 AM PST by AnnoyedOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
I thought you did not believe in such things as magic.

I don't. Most modern electronics functions because V=IxR (the common form of Ohm's Law) doesn't hold for most substances. Try taking a multimeter and measure the current running through an ordinary diode as a function of voltage and tell me if Ohm's Law holds for the diode. It doesn't. I'm sure you know that, though, and just misinterpreted the point I was making.

208 posted on 03/23/2006 10:12:48 AM PST by Quark2005 (Confidence follows from consilience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
Take Newtons Laws of Thermodynamics, for instance.

Ahem. Are you sure you meant thermdynamics?

209 posted on 03/23/2006 10:13:02 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne

"Take Newtons Laws of Thermodynamics, for instance..."

Please, tell us what *Newton* said about thermodynamics.


210 posted on 03/23/2006 10:13:40 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Yes. Resistance, being resistance to electron flow.. impedence in a capacitor is similar, in that in an AC circuit, a capacitor resists electron flow at certain frequencies.


211 posted on 03/23/2006 10:17:01 AM PST by AnnoyedOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
Well, then I wonder why millions of humans over the centuries never figured it out until Darwin.

You could make that claim about any scientific theory. Why did it take until the 16th century to verify a heliocentric solar system? The evidence was in plain view. Someone had to be first (and Darwin wasn't the first to figure out evolution, he was just the first to attribute it to a testable & subsequently verified cause).

212 posted on 03/23/2006 10:19:55 AM PST by Quark2005 (Confidence follows from consilience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Newton%27s+Second+Law+of+Thermodynamics%22&btnG=Search


213 posted on 03/23/2006 10:22:06 AM PST by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: js1138

How could I have forgotten?

:)


214 posted on 03/23/2006 10:23:52 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne

>, I am suprised that there are so many people who are scared of their children being exposed to various ideas

In philosophy class, sure. But we don't want alchemy taught as an "alternative theory" to chemistry.


215 posted on 03/23/2006 10:27:16 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Diplomacy is what you do after you kick the enemy's ass and define their lives afterward)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne

>, I am suprised that there are so many people who are scared of their children being exposed to various ideas

In philosophy class, sure. But we don't want alchemy taught as an "alternative theory" to chemistry.


216 posted on 03/23/2006 10:27:21 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Diplomacy is what you do after you kick the enemy's ass and define their lives afterward)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne; js1138; Virginia-American; Right Wing Professor; CarolinaGuitarman
[[Theories are not proven. LAWS are proven.]]

[Neither are ever proven, and laws get superceded by more inclusive laws.]

really?

Yes, really.

Take Newtons Laws of Thermodynamics, for instance.

*cough*

Originating with "An object at rest will tend to stay at rest, and an object in motion will continue to remain in motion, in a straight line, until acted upon by an outside force".. it has been added to and expanded, but that basic concept has NEVER been superceded.

You mean, other than the realization that due to quantum physics there's actually no such thing as "an object at rest"?

More inclusive means something was added to it.. but not that the original remains.. and remains factual.

That's nice, but even leaving aside your errors, nothing you've said here refutes the statement that was made. The fact that some laws might not (yet?) have been superceded doesn't change the fact that at times laws *do* get superceded, which demonstrates the falseness of the original claim that "LAWS are proven" -- if they were actually proven, they wouldn't need corrections and modifications.

217 posted on 03/23/2006 10:30:06 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Sick of Lefties
Intelligent design is accused of not constituting "real" science because it clearly has religious implications.

No, it's accused of not constituting "real" science because it is not science by generally accepted definition of the word 'science'.

218 posted on 03/23/2006 10:31:59 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
The evidence was in plain view. Plain view? Too bad they wasted so much time with the building of telescopes and other equimpment to measure with since it was in "plain view". No wonder it took so long, since they wasted so much time on unnecessary developments. Looked at any atoms lately? BTW, to the fellow who asked bout if I meant to say thermodynamics, I did indeed misspeak. Newtons laws of Classical Dynamics and Zeroths Law of thermo dynamics. I was up late discussing this.. and in fact find it hard to believe this thread has gone this long.. anyone else getting bored? In any event, I am dropping this one, because I AM geting bored with it and have other threads I want to address. You win, protect your kids from "dangerous" ideas all ya like. I do not care about the subject enough to dehate it further. You obviously are more frightened of your children being corrupted more than I care about their minds being expanded. I will go away and drink my poison and stop corrupting your youth now. ;)
219 posted on 03/23/2006 10:34:50 AM PST by AnnoyedOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
You place a lot of weight in the words of wikipedia, which may or may not be correct as it is filled in by just about anyone who chooses to add to it (I think wikipedia has had some controversy lately over that very thing).

Who brought Wikipedia into it? The definition didn't originate there - if somebody put it there, it has no bearing on this discussion. You're changing the subject.

Theories are not proven. LAWS are proven.

You're the one who brought up "proof". You said "If ANY of the theories can ever be PROVEN", which you now acknowledge is not possible with any theory. Mighty big "if" there, my friend.

And now you bring up Law. What does that have to do with it?

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Words mean things, after all.

Care to tell us how ID fits in there? We've established that it's not a Theory, what relevance does it have to a Law? Let's stay on track, shall we?

Theories can, however, be tested, make predictions, and results repeated.

Precisely why ID fails to qualify. It does none of those.

220 posted on 03/23/2006 10:36:23 AM PST by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
"In any event, I am dropping this one, because I AM geting bored with it and have other threads I want to address."

You forgot the part where your claims were demolished.

"You obviously are more frightened of your children being corrupted more than I care about their minds being expanded. I will go away and drink my poison and stop corrupting your youth now. ;)"

Is that a promise? :)
221 posted on 03/23/2006 10:39:16 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

Didn't we have a previous DU-troll using the phrase "Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics"?


222 posted on 03/23/2006 10:44:02 AM PST by balrog666 (Irrational beliefs inspire irrational posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
I must say, I am suprised that there are so many people who are scared of their children being exposed to various ideas,

Indeed:

some of which are purely speculative.

I have nothing at all against children being exposed to various "speculative" ideas, as long as they are presented *as* speculative ideas. The problem with "ID", however, is that it's a speculative idea that dishonestly wants to be taught as if it were an established field of science, which it most certainly is not. They want ID to disingenously be presented in a way that accords it the respect which established science has, without actually having done anything to *earn* that respect.

Worse, much of what has been suggested as an "ID curriculum" is actually just science-bashing propaganda, comprised of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and "spin".

This goes far beyond just exposing kids to "speculative ideas", it's an outright propaganda campaign, it's a Big Lie.

I would have thought that those who were confident in their beliefs would be unafraid of having their beliefs challenged... but history has shown that to be untrue time and time again, and a lot of brilliant minds went to the stake for it, so I do not know why I expected any greater enlightenment in thought now.

Yes, the anti-evolutionists don't seem very confident of their beliefs at all, that's why I keep seeing so many posts about them wanting to yank their kids (and everyone else's kids) out of public schools so that they'll no longer be exposed to evolutionary biology and other fields of science which scare them.

223 posted on 03/23/2006 10:47:52 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Yes. That's why I noticed it so quickly. I also recall that it is a common mistake. Google turns up 600 pages on the phrase.


224 posted on 03/23/2006 10:47:52 AM PST by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
"sure I promise. It puts me in good company, men like Socrates and Copernicus.. and places you into the catagory of the other guys who were so frightened of opposing ideas that they wanted them dead."

Copernicus killed himself? That's news. Who wanted him dead?


BTW, your melodramatic hysterics are very amusing. I am not stopping anybody from believing whatever they wish. Theology doesn't belong in a science class; creationism/ID is not science. Evolution is. Deal with it. Or else I'll summon the powers of Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics and smite thee! :)

Don't Freepmail me again, unless you want it posted again.
225 posted on 03/23/2006 10:49:51 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
In any event, I am dropping this one, because I AM geting bored with it and have other threads I want to address. You win, protect your kids from "dangerous" ideas all ya like. I do not care about the subject enough to dehate it further.

Most folks who come unarmed to a gunfight get bored with it pretty quick.

Regarding your point about the relative likelihood of hummingbirds humming the 5th Symphony, and DNA--you are refuting comic book science. Modern biology does not propose that DNA, cellularity, or any other complexly related machinery in the biological toolkit sprang into existence overnight due to lightning bolts in mudpuddles, or any other form of instantaneous miraculous tinkering. So the odds calculations you have been proudly refusing to provide are irrelevant. You are not refuting anything science is proposing.

226 posted on 03/23/2006 10:55:08 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
If I may interject an off-topic comment, I tend to agree that teachers treat some topics as if they were written in stone by God. this is nothing new.

My fourth grade teacher (1954) had lost her son in WWII and would seldom let a week go by without assuring us that the only good Jap was a dead Jap. This woman spent her summers traveling the world.

One of my son's teachers assured him that snakes do not have bones.

I could mention a couple of other stories, but my point is I believe people when they say teachers frequently fail to mention that scientific knowledge is subject to update and correction.
227 posted on 03/23/2006 10:56:22 AM PST by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

" btw: how is your alchemy class coming? Turn any lead into gold this week?"

No but I'm pretty sure some Iranians are turning U238 into Pu239.


228 posted on 03/23/2006 10:57:49 AM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: donh

220+ posts in the thread, nearly a third of them mine, and I got bored with it "quickly"?
ROFLMSAO.

Have a nice day. (snicker)


229 posted on 03/23/2006 11:00:04 AM PST by AnnoyedOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: js1138
One of my son's teachers assured him that snakes do not have bones.

Snakes gots bones? My favorite, and it's incredibly common, is that if the earth stopped spinning, we'd all fly off. because it's the centrifugal force acting on the air column over our head that holds us down. That's what we get for letting people with ed. degrees teach.

230 posted on 03/23/2006 11:03:43 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
...I am suprised that there are so many people who are scared of their children being exposed to various ideas...

There's nothing wrong with teaching ID. The problem is pretending it's science, and pretending that there is substantial scientific doubt about evolution.

For example, it's an interesting case study when studying the history or philosophy of science.

I would have thought that those who were confident in their beliefs would be unafraid of having their beliefs challenged... but history has shown that to be untrue time and time again, and a lot of brilliant minds went to the stake for it...

A relevant example here is Lysenko having Vavilov sent to the Gulag and then executed. Vavilov's crime was being a geneticist and Darwinist. He had the courage to say that real science showed that Lysenko was full of it.

...confident in their beliefs would be unafraid of having their beliefs challenged...

You seem to be confusing "belief" and "knowledge".

As I see it, the main belief on the evolution side is the belief that the scientific method of observation, measurement, theory testing, etc, leads to reliable knowledge.

Creationists challenge this, by postulating that the Bible, Koran, or whatever scripture or revelation they believe in has some sort of veto.

It is known (beyond a reasonable doubt) that at least some creationist claims (like the 6000-year-old Earth, or the story of Xenu and the Thetans) are false, so their method of arriving at knowledge is not reliable.

ID-ists, on the other hand, pretend to honor the scientific method, but they make claims without backing them up with observations. For example, the claim of "no transitional fossils". Again it is known (beyond a reasonable doubt) that there is a steady progression of fossil forms going from Hyracotherium (aka Eohippus) to modern horses, asses, zebras, etc. IF you're going to challenge this, you need some contrary evidence, not just an empty claim that "you weren't there" or "we can't be 100% sure", or whatever.

There is no coherent theory of ID; who did what, to what, when, how, none of these are specified. There is no observation that could test such a vacuous hypothesis.

231 posted on 03/23/2006 11:04:00 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
"ROFLMSAO. Post it all ya want. Your "You promise?" thing was assinine (sic), simple as that."

As was your drama queen melodramatics.



"And yeah, Socrates was forced to drink pison(sic), killing himself, by others who thought he was corrupting the youth. Try cracking open a history book and educating yourself."

I said Copernicus, not Socrates. You claimed both were persecuted and killed themselves. You said,

"sure I promise. It puts me in good company, men like Socrates and Copernicus...and places you into the catagory(sic) of the other guys who were so frightened of opposing ideas that they wanted them dead."

I responded with:

" Copernicus killed himself? That's news. Who wanted him dead?"

Don't know who you think you are fooling, as I posted the whole freepmail. I never mentioned Socrates.



"I merely freepmailed it because I figured you would prefer to keep a personalized comment and the response to it to yourself, since I did not figure you would like to advertise your stupidity and I did not intend to do it for you.. call it courtesy."

Now that's a good joke!

"Ya wanna post it, and this one, in open forum, be my guest. I have no problems with it if you choose to advertise your ignorance. But with your response about Socrates, you already have advertised it, so knock yourself out. ;)"

As I CLEARLY said Copernicus, you are the one making the fool of themselves. :)

Now, stop freepmailing me or I'll smite you with Newton's Thermodynamic Whammy. :)
232 posted on 03/23/2006 11:07:31 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: js1138; CarolinaGuitarman

[Google search for Newtonian Thermo]

Did you notice that some of the Google hits were **term paper services** ?!


233 posted on 03/23/2006 11:09:11 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
"Oh and further, to clear up your question about Copernicus.. no, he was not forced to suicide.. but he was wanted dead, by the RCC. Once again, get a history book.

have a nice day."

Um, no he wasn't. He was never even threatened, by anybody. Please, stop this. You are embarrassing all FReepers.
234 posted on 03/23/2006 11:09:25 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
Ah yes, nice try at an only slightly veiled ad hominem attack. Someone disagrees with you therefore it must be someone from DU. I have never been there, I have heard about them quie a bit, but I somehow doubt many over at DU want any sort of mention of a possible creator in our schools. I am not even sure what DU actually stands for or where they would be located on the net, though I am sure I could find it if I were interested. I think your position on any mention of a creator in a school is probably much more in line with the liberal agenda than mine is, by far. The resistance I have met here with regards to the topic is something I would have expected among a bunch of liberals.

Actually I was pointing out that your ignorance has not gone unnoticed although I was not even the first to notice it. I was also insinuating that, from the unusual (and nonsensical) phrase you employed, you are likely a previously banned unperson, or one of their stooges, bent upon a mission of ad hominem spewing, Creationism-spamming, and general thread-disruption.

Of course, I could be wrong ... you just might be an honest liberal (gasp) engaging in some projection while sending love notes.

235 posted on 03/23/2006 11:11:59 AM PST by balrog666 (Irrational beliefs inspire irrational posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
220+ posts in the thread, nearly a third of them mine, and I got bored with it "quickly"? ROFLMSAO.

220 posts is some big triumph? You haven't been hanging around these evo threads very long,have you?

220+ posts, full of strange metaphysical conceits and pseudo-scientific arguments, and when you finally get some folks dander up enough to begin formulating concrete counter-arguments and questions, you sarcastically declare yourself the winner as you dodge for the exit. A proud day for your team, eh?

236 posted on 03/23/2006 11:14:08 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
"This is really for the schoolchildren of America. This is the evidence of evolution," said the exhibit's curator, Niles Eldridge.

Adolph Hitler said….”Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state. The state will take youth and give to youth it’s own education and it’s own upbringing. Your child belongs to us already….what are you?”

237 posted on 03/23/2006 11:14:48 AM PST by patriot_wes (papal infallibility - a proud tradition since 1869)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Don't Freepmail me again, unless you want it posted again.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Another one of those ...

I got one too. Definitely a DU-setup.

238 posted on 03/23/2006 11:15:24 AM PST by balrog666 (Irrational beliefs inspire irrational posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: donh

" you sarcastically declare yourself the winner as you dodge for the exit."

Don't forget, she rather dramatically suggested she would be forced to take the same course as Socrates with the hemlock. I think we should be lenient on her; her problems are a bit deeper than just scientific illiteracy...


239 posted on 03/23/2006 11:19:58 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
That's an interesting approach, but the problem that I see it is that impeachment only cures the symptom -- the particular set of board members who buy into the idea that this junk (ID, creationism, etc.) should be taught to children -- and not the disease -- the junk itself.

With impeachment, nothing will prevent another group of dimwits from doing the same thing, requiring another round of impeachments. (Or worse, if the dimwits succeed in getting enough dimwits elected to the legislature to prevent the impeachment.) By going the litigation route, it makes it very clear that the disease is excised, and anyone trying to do it again will be knocked down quickly.

240 posted on 03/23/2006 11:22:19 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
What makes you think I would disagree with you on this?

The general tone of the conversation and the fact that you proposed it as a duality. I apologize if I misconstrued your argument.

241 posted on 03/23/2006 11:23:59 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Don't forget, she rather dramatically suggested she would be forced to take the same course as Socrates with the hemlock. I think we should be lenient on her; her problems are a bit deeper than just scientific illiteracy...

What? And let her get a away with killing off Copernicus?

242 posted on 03/23/2006 11:24:22 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

I noticed that.


243 posted on 03/23/2006 11:25:00 AM PST by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

It's in the same history book with Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics.


244 posted on 03/23/2006 11:26:36 AM PST by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne; Quark2005
Interesting. I served in the military as a Precision Measuring Electronics (PMEL) Tech, and callibrated oscilloscopes and other test equipment for the guys who worked on the black boxes in fighter aircraft. I bet those fighter jocks would have felt very comfortable knowing that the entire electronics systems within their aircraft were based on mere imagination. I thought you did not believe in such things as magic.

The REAL Ohm's law reads(from Quark's FAVORITE text, Classical Electrodynamics by J.D. Jackson):

J = s E

(Note: the 's' should be a greek 'sigma' character, and may actually appear as such in your browser. It's not working for me for some reason.) Where J is the current density, s is the area through which the current is moving, and E is tha applied electric field. It so happens that this rather evil little equation reduces to the simple V = IR that everybody knows and loves for most metals. So pretty much everything YOU had to manipulate in your career as an electrician followed the more practical version of ohm's law. Here's a website that explains the microscopic view of Ohm's law in more detail:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/electric/ohmmic.html#c1
245 posted on 03/23/2006 11:27:19 AM PST by gomaaa (We love Green Functions!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
I do think that the FTC should more thoroughly prosecute people who are peddling products based on demonstrably false claims under the pretense of science and/or medicine. Products & services sold by Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, et.al. should be subject to the same legal scrutiny as the virulent fraud of that pharmaceutical conspiracy nut Kevin Trudeau.

Agreed, but, unfortunately, the way the laws in this country are set up, it's easier to recover in a lawsuit because someone defrauded you of $10 than it is to recover because someone defrauded your children of a good, quality science education.

246 posted on 03/23/2006 11:28:52 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
Take Newtons Laws of [Motion] , for instance. Originating with "An object at rest will tend to stay at rest, and an object in motion will continue to remain in motion, in a straight line, until acted upon by an outside force".. it has been added to and expanded, but that basic concept has NEVER been superceded. More inclusive means something was added to it.. but not that the original remains.. and remains factual.

Of course. That's how the more succesful sceintific theories tend to work, evolution included. The concept of puncuated equilibrium extended Darwin's original idea, but did not alter the basic concepts at work.
247 posted on 03/23/2006 11:30:46 AM PST by gomaaa (We love Green Functions!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
Plain view? Too bad they wasted so much time with the building of telescopes and other equimpment to measure with since it was in "plain view".

Copernicus didn't use a telescope.

I have no problem with 'dangerous' ideas, only with the mislabeling of ideas (i.e. intelligent design as science...) Come up with a few positive tests for the veracity of ID and we'll have something to talk about.

248 posted on 03/23/2006 11:31:23 AM PST by Quark2005 (Confidence follows from consilience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

No need to apologize!


249 posted on 03/23/2006 11:34:06 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: AnnoyedOne
ROFLMSAO.

I've never seen that one. What's the "S" stand for? Stinky?

250 posted on 03/23/2006 11:35:38 AM PST by Chiapet (Uncle Sam wants You! (to buy more magnetic car ribbons....))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-361 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