Hello:

If we teach Creationism in science class, when those kids graduate, will they know how to MAKE a rocket ship, or PRAY for one?

excon

Science is not the opposite of God. Science is simply understanding the world that we live in that is bound by physical laws. Science can't wrap it's fingers around explaining God because God is OUTSIDE of that which is created.

If I can have my say here... I do believe evolution should be taught... but only as theory, not fact. However, I do not expect the view point of creationism to be taught in school either. Not everybody is a Christian and that type of thing is what should be taught at home.

And to sign off on this... anybody who prays for a rocket ship instead of working at one, doesn't understand God, scripture, or the fundamentals of prayer.

I'm with hauntinghelper on this. Often science is proving what the Bible said thousands of years ago. How do you think Rockefeller became a millionaire?

I went to Catholic School where I was taught that God created the Universe . I also was taught science at least as well as the public schools teach it . As I have mentioned more than once on these boards ,there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Evolution is a flawed hypothesis and ID doesn't fill in the scientific gaps .

However, I do not expect the view point of creationism to be taught in school either. Not everybody is a Christian and that type of thing is what should be taught at home.
I think it should be mentioned in science class that there are people who believe in Creationism (etc.) and then describe what it is. The more students know about what diverse thinking is out there in the world, the better educated and informed they will be.

(I grew up in a closed, very conservative, situation and was totally rattled and blown away to find out in high school, and especially in college, that my viewpoint wasn't the only one out there.)

Hello helper,
I do believe evolution should be taught... but only as theory, not factThanks for your response...

I'd only say, that IF the manufacture of the vaccines we regularly inject ourselves with, was based on THEORY and not FACT, I'd NEVER let then near me with their hocus pocus needles.

Excon

The more students know about what diverse thinking is out there in the world, the better educated and informed they will be.


But that contradicts the liberal idea of conformity of ideas.

but that contradicts the liberal idea of conformity of ideas.
It's the liberal idea of knowing as much as possible about a certain subject -- pros, cons, and in between (and not the conservative idea of closing your mind to anything your tribe doesn't believe and agree with). That's why we have public libraries, to do in-depth research on a topic.

Hello again, tom:
but that contradicts the liberal idea of conformity of ideas.Which party is PURIFYING itself because SOME don't "conform"? Here's a hint. It AIN'T the liberals.

Boy, oh boy. I really think you BELIEVE that tripe you posted..

Excon

Which party is PURIFYING itself because SOME don't "conform"? ,

Umm ,how many of the 2006 blue dog coalition is left in the Dems ? How many pro-life, pro-gun moderates Dems are left ? They bullied Sen. Max Baucus into retirement and are going after Sen. Mark Pryor. By the time they are finished the Dem party will be nothing but a Northeast and Pacific coast party . Even there ;they purged Joe Lieberman because he was not liberal enough . Not too long ago the Dems welcomed Arlen Specter into their ranks only to primary him out of a job. Blanche Lincoln was forced into a primary run off by a lefty . Weakened sufficiently by her party ,she lost the general election.
Now about that charge about the Repubics... Speaker Bonehead and the other beltway Repubics have been doing a pretty effective job keeping the conservatives in line unfortunately .

Hello helper,Thanks for your response...

I'd only say, that IF the manufacture of the vaccines we regularly inject ourselves with, was based on THEORY and not FACT, I'd NEVER let then near me with their hocus pocus needles.

excon
Vaccines are only theory, look how every year they say they can only guess what strain of flu to make their conncotion for.

Hello again, N0:

Vaccines are only theory, I take it then, that you would NEVER put that voo doo theory stuff into your body.

Would I be correct or not?

Excon

Definitely I never do any vaccines

Definitely I never do any vaccines
In the '40s and '50s, I suffered from and could have died because of having every disease known to childhood (except whooping cough) because of no vaccines. My vaccinated kids didn't.

Hello again, Carol:

My vaccinated kids didn't.That's only your theory.

Excon

Hello again, Carol:
That's only your theory.

excon
Dear excon:

They had none of the diseases I had. Not even theoretically.

Respectfully,
WG

There is proof that doctors had whooping cough and many of the diseases they vaccinate for under control before drug companies came out with vaccines for them at the brink of a decrease in these diseases, thus making it look like the vaccines were the cure.
In fact the past few years it has been proven that the places that have had a break out of whooping cough were people that were actually vaccinated for whooping cough.

Hello again, N0:

Definitely I never do any vaccinesNot polio? Not Diphtheria? If you got bit by a dog, you wouldn't get a rabies shot? If you stepped on a rusty nail, you wouldn't get a tetanus shot?

I don't know if you have kids, but do you leave them unprotected too.

Excon

The answer to your original question is both. They will build what they know and pray for it to work properly while everyone is kept safe doing so.

Hello again, N0:
Not polio?? Not Diphtheria? If you got bit by a dog, you wouldn't get a rabies shot? If you stepped on a rusty nail, you wouldn't get a tetanus shot?

I dunno if you have kids, but do you leave them unprotected too.

excon

It depends, but I am not going to take any preventative shots.

Why choose one or the other when you can have the benefit of both?

It depends, but I am not going to take any preventative shots.
Did you have any as a child? The polio vaccine?

The few they gave in the 50's and 60's when I was little. Then it was probably less than a dozen. NOW they give an average of 49 vaccines before age 6 and many are vaccines that babies and children are not ready for.
I am 58, I am healthier than most and do not take any medications, have no real health problems. Most people I know, even kids have diabetes, fatty liver, obese, need an inhaler, take 3 to 20 meds, etc...

kids have diabetes, fatty liver, obese, need an inhaler, take 3 to 20 meds, etc......
But that's not because of the vaccines.

The kids I know who were exempted from vaccines (by their parents) are way healthier than the kids that got all the vaccines.

You need a different perspective. Religion tells you the why, Science researches the how. These are not in conflict since religion provides very little detail and science tries to fill in that detail. Einstein said; I just want to know the thoughts of God everything else is just the detail.

The problem we have is absolutism, that man wants to say that the view that they have formed is absolute truth rather than their perspective on truth. Evolution is a theory which is yet to be proved but when you examine the detail of what exists here you have to see more than dumb multiplication of cells or pond scum becoming a human being, If pond scum could become a human being why do we still have pond scum?

Precisely Paaclete!

If pond scum could become a human being why do we still have pond scum?
Where did the Grand Canyon come from? God made it just like that?

The kids I know who were exempted from vaccines (by their parents) are way healthier than the kids that got all the vaccines.
And many have died from measles and other diseases they should have gotten inoculated against. And just because those kids are healthy doesn't mean it was because they didn't get the vaccines. My kids did get them (not 46!) and have always been healthy, alarmingly healthy.

Where did the Grand Canyon come from? God made it just like that?

I don't think anyone suggested that there haven't been physical changes on the Earth since creation arising from erosion, volcanic activity and so forth, what you are debating is when did it all start and at what point did Genesis 1.1-2 become Genesis 1:3,etc. What is debated is what is the process of creation.

As to the Grand Canyon a massive release of water at the end of the ice age could have carved the canyon just as easily as a small river could have over millions of years. I don't know which view requires the greater faith

It's the parents choice.

Its the parents choice.
Unfortunately.

What we must strive for in education is a balanced view, therefore both views should be taught. If they are incompatiable then they are taught as different subjects, but the debate which arises is as important as the teaching of absolutes.

Hello clete:

What we must strive for in education is a balanced view, therefore both views should be taught. I agree. All viewpoints need to be taught... But, in THIS case, one ISN'T a viewpoint.. It's RELIGION... It's a GREAT story, but it's RELIGION.. It SHOULD be taught, where RELIGION is taught, which in church.

Excon

Hello clete:
I agree. All viewpoints need to be taught... But, in THIS case, one ISN'T a viewpoint.. It's RELIGION... It's a GREAT story, but it's RELIGION.. It SHOULD be taught, where RELIGION is taught, which in church.

excon
I think it should be at least mentioned as an "opposing viewpoint."

As long as its not on the test, mention away, but if someone wants to mention another religion is that okay too?

As long as its not on the test, mention away, but if someone wants to mention another religion is that okay too?
A native American story of creation or two?

Creation/Migration/Origin Stories (http://www.indians.org/welker/legend.htm)

Hello again, Carol:
I think it should be at least mentioned as an "opposing viewpoint."Tal is right.. Which religions opposing viewpoint of creation should be mentioned? All of them? Why should ANY religion be mentioned in a science class?

Excon

Tell me yours, I will tell you mine. What? You don't believe in mine?? Screw you too!! End of conversation, start of the war of the gods.

This is a contensious issue but the theory of evolution doesn't stand the test of fact and should not be taught as fact but as an explanation of some observations.

Religion is essentially interested in the recent past and the relationship between human beings and their creator. Science seeks to explain certain observed occurrences. The contention appears to be in the reference to in the beginning and there are many references to this in all cultures. Science has difficulty proving God because they cannot observe him.

Now Tal has just become irritated and I can understand this point of view, this is why religion has it's own board here.

What is irrational is the attempt to exclude religion and its point of view from any discussion in education of origins. An examination of Scriptures indicates a depth of knowledge that must have come from somewhere yet it arose in a society that didn't have science as we understand it. The viewpoint is therefore valid and I for one reject that "evolution" is the only explanation of origins. I will allow adaptation because this is observable but it doesn't explain origin. We have created many breeds of dog in a short time but by breeding dogs we have not created a cat or a bear

Hello again, clete:

This is a contensious issue but the theory of evolution doesn't stand the test of fact and should not be taught as fact but as an explanation of some observations.You MUST know why I was asking about vaccinations, don't you? That's because an ENTIRE field science is BASED on evolution, and it's called BIOLOGY. And, biology is the basis of modern MEDICINE. You don't think they base that on an OBSERVATION, do you?? If you do, it must be TERRIFYING to go to a doctors office.

I know these facts won't penetrate your religious shield. It just won't let you see the truth..

Excon

This is a contensious issue but the theory of evolution doesn't stand the test of fact and should not be taught as fact but as an explanation of some observations.

Why should we take religion as fact? There's no evidence there either.

Hello again, clete:
You MUST know why I was asking about vaccinations, don't you?? That's because an ENTIRE field science is BASED on evolution, and it's called BIOLOGY. And, biology is the basis of modern MEDICINE. You don't think they base that on an OBSERVATION, do you???? If you do, it must be TERRIFYING to go to a doctors office.

I know these facts won't penetrate your religious shield. It just won't let you see the truth..

excon

Ex you too are confusing observations with fact. Biology is observation. As little as two centuries ago they were cutting up dead bodies to observe how they might function. If doctors knew what they were doing in every instance all disease would be eradicated by now. Right now my doctor tells me I have a condition called shingles consisting of severe head pain and pins and needles confined to the left hemisphere of my head. Medical science suggests he may be wrong so he is going to have me have a CT scan. If his knowledge were perfect based on a study of biology he would have cured me by now, he hasn't, just treated the symptoms with limited success. What I know is sometimes they make the right call based on observation, sometimes they do not and I don't expect them to perform miracles but to apply the knowledge they have

My religious point of view doesn't interfere with me consulting a doctor and by the way this doctor shares my religious views

Why it's so hard to get the flu vaccine supply right - NBC News.com (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/why-its-so-hard-get-flu-vaccine-supply-right-1B7982187)

Measles outbreak tied to Texas megachurch sickens 21 - NBC News.com (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/measles-outbreak-tied-texas-megachurch-sickens-21-8C11009315)

And this proves what?

and this proves what?
That children are getting sick and even dying unnecessarily because their parents refused to get them vaccinated.

Vaccine Coverage High in U.S., but Measles Outbreaks a Concern: CDC (http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20130912/vaccine-coverage-high-in-us-but-measles-outbreaks-a-concern-cdc)

That diseases can spread without vaccinations. DUH!!

Shooting the Wheeze: Whooping Cough Vaccine Falls Short of Previous Shot (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=whooping-cough-vaccine-falls-short-of-previous-shots-protection)

Diseases can spread with vaccinations too. Point being the science isn't perfect. I don't agree with religious people undermining public health programs without very good reason, but vaccinations have proven effective against many diseases even to the point of eradication and if extended into the third world would make a significant difference. I didn't appreciate bringing back whooping cough when I visited Pakistan a few years ago and I had been vaccinated before I went

You see I can take a fundamentalist view on many things and a pragmatist view on others because I don't try to allege that I have the whole truth on all matters

Religion is being treated here as if it were a single monolithic idea. It's not. There are many religions, often, as all the world knows, denying the truth of other religions.

Religion, any aspect of it, should not be taught in public schools (see the First Amendment).

Creationism, or ID, is hardly a theory in any scientific sense. It is a belief - a religious belief. The proper venue for teaching this is the home and/or the church/synagogue/mosque, etc.

Religion at its best has lasted for millennia because, overall, it is a tremendous force for good.

Religion is being treated here as if it were a single monolithic idea. It's not. There are many religions, often, as all the world knows, denying the truth of other religions.

Religion, any aspect of it, should not be taught in public schools (see the First Amendment).

Such an idea is unique to america and quite at odds with its foundation. Your constitution deals with the setting up of a state religion, that is the exclusion of other religions, not the teaching of religion


Creationism, or ID, is hardly a theory in any scientific sense. It is a belief - a religious belief. The proper venue for teaching this is the home and/or the church/synagogue/mosque, etc.

Religion at its best has lasted for millennia because, overall, it is a tremendous force for good.

Creationism is not intelligent design. Intelligent design recognises the qualities that make evolution unlikely and therefore comes from scientific observation.

Religion has lasted because man has recognised that there is an intelligence other than his own at work

Hello again, clete:

Your constitution deals with the setting up of a state religion, that is the exclusion of other religions, not the teaching of religionAn employee of the state teaching religion is an endorsement of that religion, and tantamount to "establishing" it. The state can't DO that. There's no two ways around it.

Excon

Ex you take definitions to extreme. If that state employee teaches one religion to the exclusion of all others you may be correct but if such teaching is not endoresed by the state you are not. What one person does cannot be interpretted as an act of the state. It becomes an act of the state if the state says teach this to the exclusion of all other views and if it does this with evolution it establishes a state religion, a secular religion. So what you would have us do is in fact unconstitutional

The state does not endorse a religion by teaching what the religion believes .

The state does not endorse a religion by teaching what the religion believes .

Exactly

Hello again,

The state does not endorse a religion by teaching what the religion believes .I would agree, if the state taught what ALL religions believe... You could call that class RELIGION... It would be GOOD...

But, if you teach it in a SCIENCE class, and it's only ONE religions viewpoint, it's clearly a REBUTTAL to science. That's BAD!

Excon

If we teach Creationism in science class, when those kids graduate, will they know how to MAKE a rocket ship, or PRAY for one?

If science ignores evidence that contradicts its dogma that isn't science either. And by the way, you really should study up on and gain some respect for Christian thinkers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science) and their scientific contributions. We're not stupid.

Hello again, Steve:

We're not stupid.No, but you're part of the borg.

Let me ask you this.. Let's say there's a guy, whose opinion you really REALLY respect, and then you find out he BELIEVES in the tooth fairy. Would you STILL respect him? Would it invalidate his opinion on, say, Global Warming?

I knew a guy named Werner Erhardt. People said he KNEW how to live life. We should listen and pay him money. Then we found out he beat his wife. Would knowing that INVALIDATE what he said about how to live life?

Excon

If science ignores evidence that contradicts its dogma that isn't science either. And by the way, you really should study up on and gain some respect for Christian thinkers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science) and their scientific contributions. We're not stupid.

They took many positions the church didn't like back then, and now. Many paid a price of retribution from the church. The church doesn't like science that contradicts its dogma.

Hello again, Steve:
No, but you're part of the borg.


excon

You will be assimulated into the collective, guess what Ex you have been assimulated, you have hive thinking

They took many positions the church didn't like back then, and now. Many paid a price of retribution from the church. The church doesn't like science that contradicts its dogma.

And so them bucking the church doesn't speak to their favor to you guys? This ridiculous meme that people of faith are anti-science idiots is not only pathetic, it contradicts the data - which is in itself illogical and anti-science. If it wasn't for Christian and other religious scientists we wouldn't be where we are today, and as I've noted MANY times here, our own education system was largely the work of the church, so show a little respect people.

I got no problem with scientists who were/are Christians, myself, just the churches who persecute the scientist. Just the loony's who want to replace the growing scientific approach with dogma, left or right, the religion doesn't matter.

It's a myth that the church persecuted scientists .

it's a myth that the church persecuted scientists .
Galileo?

Galileo was not taken to task for his science.If Galileo had kept the discussion within the boundaries of astronomy (i.e. predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated . Instead it was he who tried to expand his theory into the theological. And he was not "persecuted " either way.

[Galileo] was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[61] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.

Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei)

Yes he was under house arrest and treated like a king. What does this prove ? He was not 'persecuted' for his science .He crossed the church over his expanding it to theology . By the way ;his science was way off too ;unless you believe the sun is the center of the universe.

the sun is the center of the universe.
The Earth certainly isn't (Church belief).

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[60].

yes he was under house arrest and treated like a king.
And you'd enjoy that too?

And you'd enjoy that too?

Lots of distractions here as usual. The fact remains that the attacks on (Christians mostly) religious as being anti-science or dufuses that think they can pray a plane into existence are not based in reality and in fact, are illogical and disrespectful to the contributions to science and education in general by people of faith.

Hello again, Steve:

dufuses that think they can pray a plane into existence are not based in reality and in fact, are illogical and disrespectful to the contributions to science and education in general by people of faith.It certainly MIGHT be..

But, in YOUR reality, the earth was created in 7 days. THAT'S illogical and disrespectful on its face, too. Or, am I mistaken about what YOU believe? If that's NOT your reality, why do you want to teach children that it IS??

What am I to take from your insistence that religion be taught as an alternative to evolution?? What message are you trying to plant in a child's mind? If you teach him that God made the world in 7 days, why WOULDN'T he believe that God could build the rocket ship, if only he prayed hard enough? Why would that be a reach? By teaching creationism or IT, whatever you're calling it these days, you DO want the children to BELIEVE it, don't you?? I don't mean just CONSIDER it, but because he was taught in SCHOOL, to BELIEVE it ABSOLUTELY...

How is that going to further his rocket ship building?? Tell me, please. There must be a reason...

Excon

Hello again, Steve:
It certainly MIGHT be..

But, in YOUR reality, the earth was created in 7 days. THAT'S illogical and disrespectful on its face.

What am I to take from your insistence that religion be taught as an alternative to evolution??? What message are you trying to plant in a child's mind?? If you teach him that God made the world in 7 days, why WOULDN'T he believe that God could build the rocket ship, if only he prayed hard enough?? Why would that be a reach?? By teaching creationism or IT, whatever you're calling it these days, you DO want the children to BELIEVE it, don't you??? I don't mean just CONSIDER it, but because he was taught in SCHOOL, to BELIEVE it ABSOLUTELY... How is that going to further his rocket ship building???? Tell me, please. There must be a reason...

excon

My reality is I don't believe anyone has PROVEN they're right, but I prefer to remain OPEN minded.

I find it more far-fetched to believe you and I evolved from nothingness by pure chance than it is to believe an intelligent God created it all in 7 days or 7 billion years. That's the kicker to me, you mock us for believing there had to be a guiding hand while you believe organic molecules came out of nothingness and randomly mutated until they became sentient beings capable of inventing rocket ships.

The Earth certainly isn't (Church belief).

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[60].


"One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."
St Augustine

Hello again, Steve:

That's the kicker to me, you mock us for believing there had to be a guiding hand I DON'T mock you for BELIEVING what you do. I mock you because you want to teach RELIGION to my children.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:
I DON'T mock you for BELIEVING what you do.

I saw the picture with your OP.


I mock you because you want to teach RELIGION to my children.
There's nothing wrong with teaching about religion, but I believe that point's been made. I guess you'll have to point out what public schools are teaching creationism or ID as scientific fact for me to get too worked up about your outrage.

But, in YOUR reality, the earth was created in 7 days. THAT'S illogical and disrespectful on its face, too. Or, am I mistaken about what YOU believe? If that's NOT your reality, why do you want to teach children that it IS??
Whether it was 6 days or 6 epochs or 6 Billion years that is a question of intrepretation of Scripture and is not the point of religion anyway. Scripture tells us that with God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. A thousand years is an indeterminate period. You want to seize on one aspect and invalidate everything into a Godless universe with man at its centre. And Yes Ex misquoting Scripture is disrespectful


What am I to take from your insistence that religion be taught as an alternative to evolution?? What message are you trying to plant in a child's mind? If you teach him that God made the world in 7 days, why WOULDN'T he believe that God could build the rocket ship, if only he prayed hard enough? Why would that be a reach? By teaching creationism or IT, whatever you're calling it these days, you DO want the children to BELIEVE it, don't you?? I don't mean just CONSIDER it, but because he was taught in SCHOOL, to BELIEVE it ABSOLUTELY...

How is that going to further his rocket ship building?? Tell me, please. There must be a reason...

Excon

Why would a child believe God would build a rocket ship he doesn't need, but God just might inspire that child so that he would become the foremost engineer in astroscience.
I was taught all these things that you consider dumb and yet I interact with the world and have had a successful career. It didn't cause me to become weird although from a moral standpoint I stood apart from some of my companions.

All you prove here Ex is you know nothing about God, not that you know anything about science either

Hey Ex the big bang theory or "evolution" is just another flawed computer model. We could actually be sitting inside a black hole. If we were that would explain a lot of things

Has the Big Bang theory been busted? | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/has-the-big-bang-theory-been-busted/story-fn5fsgyc-1226721187118)

What happens to your religion of science and evolution now?

Hello again, Steve:
It certainly MIGHT be..

But, in YOUR reality, the earth was created in 7 days. THAT'S illogical and disrespectful on its face, too. Or, am I mistaken about what YOU believe?? If that's NOT your reality, why do you want to teach children that it IS???

What am I to take from your insistence that religion be taught as an alternative to evolution??? What message are you trying to plant in a child's mind?? If you teach him that God made the world in 7 days, why WOULDN'T he believe that God could build the rocket ship, if only he prayed hard enough?? Why would that be a reach?? By teaching creationism or IT, whatever you're calling it these days, you DO want the children to BELIEVE it, don't you??? I don't mean just CONSIDER it, but because he was taught in SCHOOL, to BELIEVE it ABSOLUTELY...

How is that going to further his rocket ship building???? Tell me, please. There must be a reason...

excon

Where are you getting the god made the earth is 7 days? I don't know anyone that believes that. But from the bible to science they do agree on how we got here. The only argument is how it started.

Quite a leap of FAITH to BELIEVE something came from nothing .

Where are you getting the god made the earth is 7 days? I dont know anyone that believes that. But from the bible to science they do agree on how we got here. The only argument is how it started.
Oh, yes. Many conservative, Bible-based, born-again Christians believe that -- and that something came from nothing. My former church teaches that to this day.

Oh, yes. Many conservative, Bible-based, born-again Christians believe that -- and that something came from nothing. My former church teaches that to this day.

Then that's a first. There is no such documentation in the bible that states the earth was created in 7 days. Must be a different bible.

Then thats a first. There is no such documentation in the bible that states the earth was created in 7 days. Must be a different bible.
Genesis 1 if taken literally, Creation was everything from nothing and in six 24-hour days -- and God rested on the 7th day.

Genesis 1 if taken literally, Creation was everything from nothing and in six 24-hour days -- and God rested on the 7th day.

Yep. Didn't take 7 days at all. It fits with what science is pushing.

yep. Didnt take 7 days at all. It fits with what science is pushing.
God took a nap on Day Seven.

Genesis 1 if taken literally, Creation was everything from nothing and in six 24-hour days -- and God rested on the 7th day.

There is nothing that says they were 24 hour days as we know them. On the first day the sun did not exist so there was nothing to divide day from night and allow the measurement of time as we know it. The only reason we talk about days is the word day is used.. We need to understand that Scripture is on a need to know basis. We are told the essentials of what we need to know. If Moses hadn't made reference to days we would not be questioning the length of a day.There was creation, it didn't happen all at once, there were successive events which brought us to the point where man existed on the Earth. Nothing in that has been refuted by science and the sequence of events seems to be supported by scientific study even if there is a great deal more detail than the Scripture offers

There is nothing that says they were 24 hour days as we know them. On the first day the sun did not exist so there was nothing to divide day from night and allow the measurement of time as we know it. The only reason we talk about days is the word day is used.. We need to understand that Scripture is on a need to know basis. We are told the essentials of what we need to know. If Moses hadn't made reference to days we would not be questioning the length of a day.There was creation, it didn't happen all at once, there were successive events which brought us to the point where man existed on the Earth. Nothing in that has been refuted by science and the sequence of events seems to be supported by scientific study even if there is a great deal more detail than the Scripture offers
But, like I said, many fundamentalist and conservative church bodies interpret Genesis 1 literally -- a day = 24 hours.

Observing the formation of other galaxies suggests that planets form around a star and not the other way around so where does that fall with let there be light?

Observing the formation of other galaxies suggests that planets form around a star and not the other way around so where does that fall with let there be light?

Planets get their orbit around a central point. Usually the largest mass in the area. That is where gravitational attraction comes in. Then if that point gets hot enough it can come to life as a star. Most of everything is believed to have been started from gas and formed other compounds in the process and some of those compounds come from the creation of stars that have lived through their cycle and explode.

Observing the formation of other galaxies suggests that planets form around a star and not the other way around so where does that fall with let there be light?

I think it fits perfectly, we have the idea of the big bang or the universe springing into existence and with the growing number of stars etc, light in abundance. In what way is this inconsistent?

The idea that we understand planetary formation and the process that God used to bring about the final result are an idea of man. The idea that there was only one solar system was an idea of man. The idea of an Earth centred universe was an idea of man, subsequently shown to be error in the science of the time. God never said Earth was the only place he created life, but what he has spoken of is specific to Earth or the universe seen from Earth. You have to remember that all those galaxys and very far distant objects are as they once existed, not as they do exist. It's like digging up a dinosaur, it is a view of a distant past

But, like I said, many fundamentalist and conservative church bodies interpret Genesis 1 literally -- a day = 24 hours.

I suppose God could handle it, He is God after all. Regardless, it's this ridiculous meme that religious people are anti-science intellectual lightweights that's the real myth. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, people of faith are responsible for some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history and are the foundation of our educational system.

it's this ridiculous meme that religious people are anti-science intellectual lightweights that's the real myth.
You must not hang out with the intellectual lightweight churchgoers. Trust me, they're out there and have been for years. I grew up listening to them trying to refute evolution -- "God made the Grand Canyon that way" and "The Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old" and "The flood in Genesis 7 covered the entire Earth" and "Satan put fossils there to fool people and test our faith."

Hello again, Steve:
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, people of faith are responsible for some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history and are the foundation of our educational system.You keep saying this, but it doesn't make sense to me...

Look. I know there are Christians who are also scientists... There are also Christians who think the biblical story is a parable and NOT to be taken literally... It's THAT kind of Christian who could, and does, make great scientific discoveries...

But, I'm not convinced that a person who has the CREDENTIALS of a scientist, and the BELIEFS of a fundamentalist, would EVER undertake a scientific experiment that COULD invalidate his fundamentalist belief. I just don't believe he would.

You do?

Excon

You must not hang out with the intellectual lightweight churchgoers. Trust me, they're out there and have been for years. I grew up listening to them trying to refute evolution -- "God made the Grand Canyon that way" and "The Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old" and "The flood in Genesis 7 covered the entire Earth" and "Satan put fossils there to fool people and test our faith."

I never said they weren't out there, that doesn't make us all stupid for believing in God.

Hello again, Steve:You keep saying this, but it doesn't make sense to me...

Look. I know there are Christians who are also scientists... There are also Christians who think the biblical story is a parable and NOT to be taken literally... It's THAT kind of Christian who could, and does, make great scientific discoveries...

But, I'm not convinced that a person who has the CREDENTIALS of a scientist, and the BELIEFS of a fundamentalist, would EVER undertake a scientific experiment that COULD invalidate his fundamentalist belief. I just don't believe he would.

You do?

excon

I know some of those fundamentalists, but even they go to the doctor. The point is it's time to drop this Christians are idiots meme.

This seems like the appropriate place for this since environmentalism is the religion of choice on the left.

Dominion Virginia Power won’t build offshore wind farm on tract it leased unless cost drops (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dominion-virginia-power-wont-build-offshore-wind-farm-on-tract-it-leased-unless-cost-drops/2013/09/14/4b11661e-1cc8-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html)

That's right, they made big news for their big offshore lease but won't do much because wind is too expensive.


Dominion’s own 15-year projections, in its Integrated Resource Plan filed with the state, show Virginians getting no electric power from offshore wind.

“Actual construction of such facilities must await technological advances that would reduce costs,” the plan says.

Well now, that won't do will it?


Instead, the company foresees increasing its reliance on fossil fuels, primarily natural gas. That would miss an excellent opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help slow global warming. It would also pass up an early chance to commit to a promising new industry with potential to create thousands of jobs.

Here’s the problem with Dominion’s analysis: It looks only at the costs in dollars and cents. By that measure, admittedly, offshore wind is currently about three times as expensive as natural gas.

But Dominion’s bookkeeping doesn’t take into account the health and environmental costs of continuing to rely on fossil fuel.

“Asthma for kids, acid raid, smog, sea level rise, shoreline retreat in Hampton Roads, none of that shows on your Dominion Power bill. If it did, we’d be building offshore and onshore wind turbines as fast as we could,” said Mike Tidwell, director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Well then, I recommend Tidwell spend his money and build the wind farm. That's the problem with you worshipers of the planet, instead of jumping on the bandwagon of natural gas which IS clean burning, has reduced emissions and has been the biggest bright spot in this stagnant economy you'd rather force a business to invest in a losing proposition and survive on magic fairy dust while whacking thousands of innocent - protected - birds in the process to press onward with your predetermined green jobs of the future.

I have news for you, it ain't going to happen by legislation and intimidation. You aren't going to get there as long as you stand in the way of a robust economy which is exactly what you need to get the technology and innovation you want.

You must not hang out with the intellectual lightweight churchgoers. Trust me, they're out there and have been for years. I grew up listening to them trying to refute evolution -- "God made the Grand Canyon that way" and "The Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old" and "The flood in Genesis 7 covered the entire Earth" and "Satan put fossils there to fool people and test our faith."

I don't know many Christians that will say the earth is more than 6,000 years old. They insist you have to believe in evolution and no God if you believe the gap theory or anything similar.

don't worry ;Darwinists have reasonable explanations to explain the lack of fossil records and that time gap thingy

Hello tom:

You DIDN'T learn that in science class. You learned it in CHURCH, which is where you're SUPPOSED to learn it.

If the teachers taught Creationism like THAT, you'd come out of that class BELIEVING you could create a rocket ship if you PRAYED hard enough... Otherwise, what would be the POINT of teaching them fundamentalist crap like that?

You DO want them to BELIEVE it, don't you. You DO know that IF they believe it, they'll NEVER build rocket ships.. They'll go into the science of gay repairative technology..

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

I never said ID was science. You say Darwinism is science even though it has more holes in it than swiss cheese . If your idea of science is Darwinism is fact then folks like you would not get off the ground. By the way ;building a rocket ship is an engineering feat .

I never said ID was science. You say Darwinism is science even though it has more holes in it than swiss cheese . If your idea of science is Darwinism is fact then folks like you would not get off the ground. btw ;building a rocket ship is an engineering feat .

Yes in the end even Darwin said he was wrong, pity he wasn't more precise or scientific in that statement. Evolution is theory, AGW is theory

Yes in the end even Darwin said he was wrong
That's one of those urban myths:
Darwin (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend)

That's one of those urban myths:
Darwin (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend)

Wow, you used Answersingenesis as a reliable source?

Darwin was well and healthy when he spoke of concerns about the lack of transitional fossils which would've proved his hypothesis .He hoped in the future that some would be found. But that never happened

Steve,
Is it not a good explanation?
You can try:
Deathbed conversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbed_conversion#Charles_Darwin)
Or
Inquiring Minds Newsletter (http://www.younginquirers.com/newsletter/0503/darwin.html)
Or
John van Wyhe explodes some myths about Darwin | Science | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths)

Steve,
Is it not a good explanation?
You can try:
Deathbed conversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbed_conversion#Charles_Darwin)
or
Inquiring Minds Newsletter (http://www.younginquirers.com/newsletter/0503/darwin.html)
or
John van Wyhe explodes some myths about Darwin | Science | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths)

I'm not the one who put the myth out there, just surprised you would give that group any credibility, them being a leading proponent of creationism and all.

Science and the Bible (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml)

them being a leading proponent of creationism and all.So if they say it's a myth it's a pretty good chance it is. ;-)

Science and the Bible

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible.

Oh dear.. that's funny. :D

Is this a push to replace science books in schools with the bible?

Is this a push to replace science books in schools with the bible?

You could do worse but of course you would be a little lacking on detail but some interesting experiments could be held

Healing
Speaking to rocks
Parting seas
Walking on water
Stopping time
Fighting battles with musicians

All of which proves you have to have God with you if you are going to do these things

Is this a push to replace science books in schools with the bible?

There is a place for both, it is the exclusion of one in favour of the other that is the evil

Would you feel the same if it was a bible from another religion? There are many you know.

I'm not against the study of comparative religion as long as none are deliberately excluded.
It too is in the category of there are alternative views. You see evolution is an alternative view and should be taught in comparative religion

You see evolution is an alternative view and should be taught in comparative religionExcept that by definition religions are based on faith whereas evolution is based on observable facts.

Except that by definition religions are based on faith whereas evolution is based on observable facts.

Evolution is as much based on faith as any religion since its central tenents remain unproven

I guess everything is faith to you, facts can be discarded.

I'm waiting for the facts to be presented

Education is a good start.

hey Ex the big bang theory or "evolution" is just another flawed computer model. We could actually be sitting inside a black hole. If we were that would explain a lot of things

Has the Big Bang theory been busted? | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/has-the-big-bang-theory-been-busted/story-fn5fsgyc-1226721187118)

what happens to your religion of science and evolution now?

The article is not accurate in a couple of areas in relation to the Big Bang. Firstly, the theory itself doesn't say anything about a single point in the universe where the Big Bang occurred.

Secondly, the theory does explain why there is a uniform temperature. The"lack of time" idea is bound up in the so called, "inflationary period" of expansion.

The other point worth mentioning is that evolution of the universe and biological evolution are not the same subject matter. In other words, the methodology used in biological evolution can not be used when trying to explain the evolution of the universe.

Hello again,

If I believed that biology was hocus pocus, I'd NEVER let a medical doctor NEAR ME.. But, some people are hypocrites, or are so dumb that they don't know that biology is BASED on evolution...

excon

Darwin was well and healthy when he spoke of concerns about the lack of transitional fossils which would've proved his hypothesis .He hoped in the future that some would be found. But that never happened


Actually there is.

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

It makes little difference one way or the other as far as science and religion are concerned.

Is Archopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test
Of course it fits in well with Darwinists preconceptions so it qualifies as fact .

Religion is about people, science is about the search of facts. I see it as two different classrooms.

of course it fits in well with Darwinists preconceptions so it qualifies as fact .

"it is easy enough to make up stores of how one gave rise to the other......"

The use of the word "stories" sounds a bit strange. Is this quote from a scientific source? It doesn't sound like the language of science. Is it a wiki quote?

It is logic, who needs wiki leaks for logic.

It is logic, who needs wiki leaks for logic.


In what ways would you say the actual quote is logical?

Religion is about people, science is about the search of facts. I see it as two different classrooms.

Until you start to try to disprove religion and find you cannot come up with the facts, or shall we call it something different, an alternative explanation that is based in fact

until you start to try to disprove religion and find you cannot come up with the facts, or shall we call it something different, an alternative explanation that is based in fact
"Religion" and "facts" don't belong in the same sentence (and yes, I am a preacher's kid).

In what ways would you say the actual quote is logical?

"it is easy enough to make up stories of how one gave rise to the other......"
I think it was 'Lucy' where they found different bones to different species and then claimed that it proved the neanderthal. Darwin's whole theory was about making up stories that caused giving rise to another. Theories are theories and that is how the made up stories come to be.

"it is easy enough to make up stores of how one gave rise to the other......"

The use of the word "stories" sounds a bit strange. Is this quote from a scientific source? It doesn't sound like the language of science. Is it a wiki quote?

Sorry forgot to reference... it is a quote from Colin Patterson . He was a paleontologist at the British Museum and author of several books on evolution. Here is another pertinent quote from Patterson .It was in a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, who had asked Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book:.
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." He later went on to explain :
Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.
Exactly

"it is easy enough to make up stories of how one gave rise to the other......"
I think it was 'Lucy' where they found different bones to different species and then claimed that it proved the neanderthal. Darwin's whole theory was about making up stories that caused giving rise to another. Theories are theories and that is how the made up stories come to be.

Theories are actually evidence that fits the observations at the time. Nothing more and nothing less.

I don't know who would have said anything about proving the whole theory. No evolutionary biologist with any credibility would say such a thing. As far as science is concerned there is no amount of observational evidence that proves any theory in its entirety. No scientist should ever make such a claim. If they do then they are not doing science.

Confusion over transitional records and evolution is sometimes caused by thinking of evolution as progression along a linear scale.

No scientist should ever make such a claim. If they do then they are not doing science. yes that would be a consensus orthodoxy .

yes that would be a consensus orthodoxy .


Theories are supported by the evidence, usually observational in nature. Some commentators of science get this wrong. They don't seem to realize that science is more than happy to acknowledge that it must always be an open question.

sorry forgot to reference .... it is a quote from Colin Patterson . He was a paleontologist at the British Museum and author of several books on evolution. Here is another pertinent quote from Patterson .It was in a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, who had asked Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book:.
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." He later went on to explain :
Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.
exactly


A private letter. That would explain the terminology.

Theories are supported by the evidence, usually observational in nature. Some commentators of science get this wrong. They don't seem to realize that science is more than happy to acknowledge that it must always be an open question.

If that were truly the case then why do we have so many that still cling to the global warming theory ?

If that were truely the case then why do we have so many that still cling to the global warming theory ?

Good question. The answer is probably because they are human. Other practical reasons may well be that it provides a good paycheck each week. Even the great Einstein refused to accept the evidence of quantum mechanics. "God does not play dice". Interestingly enough there are still a few mainstream scientists are still hostile towards quantum mechanics.

When you start to talk about the implications of quantum mechanics a few soon becomes many. I guess it is just human nature.

If that were truely the case then why do we have so many that still cling to the global warming theory ?

Truly a good question and the answer lies in human nature, we want to believe that the answers we have come up with are the whole truth because our egos won't allow us to consider that we might be wrong until the weight of contrary evidence is overwhelming. In Global Warming we have a partial truth that has been blown out of proportion for political purposes. Yes there is or maybe some impact from the burning of fossel fuels, but it isn't the entire reason, examination of the evidence has shown other factors. Volcanos have both a warming effect and a cooling effect, the Earth's orbit is eliptical, the solar cycle, deforestation

truely a good question and the answer lies in human nature, we want to believe that the answers we have come up with are the whole truth because our egos won't allow us to consider that we might be wrong until the weight of contrary evidence is overwhelming. In Global Warming we have a partial truth that has been blown out of proportion for political purposes. Yes there is or maybe some impact from the burning of fossel fuels, but it isn't the entire reason, examination of the evidence has shown other factors. Volcanos have both a warming effect and a cooling effect, the Earth's orbit is eliptical, the solar cycle, deforestation

You left out that the model was flawed to begin with and the model was made to show a desired outcome as well as the way they went about monitoring things by putting the measuring devices they used next to known heat sources to support the theory.

You left out that the model was flawed to begin with and the model was made to show a desired outcome as well as the way they went about monitoring things by putting the measuring devices they used next to known heat sources to support the theory.

well I wasn't trying to debunk the work of the scientific community, just point out that they hadn't considered all possibilities before prognosticating. Al Gore used select data to demonstate a problem existed but his extrapolations were flawed, others made similar errors or just didn't use clean data, and they failed to identify all the variables but the whole debate had been around longer than that and was subject to political exploitation

Everybody has a theory. From ancient man to modern man. Maybe future man will add a piece of the puzzle until the true picture emerges. There will probably be those that say its wrong regardless.

Everybody has a theory. From ancient man to modern man. Maybe future man will add a piece of the puzzle until the true picture emerges. There will probably be those that say its wrong regardless.

Yes no doubt ancient man had a theory as to why climate change caused the ice age to end, the point is every scientific advance has been demonstrated to be only a small part of the puzzle in the light of later advances. We have advanced greatly though the use of vaccines and antibiotics but we may have actually provided our own demise. We have advanced greatly through the use of energy and machines but we may have provided our own demise. We are the sorcerers apprentice

You left out that the model was flawed to begin with and the model was made to show a desired outcome as well as the way they went about monitoring things by putting the measuring devices they used next to known heat sources to support the theory.

If this were happening then it would be considered scientific fraud. This is somewhat a different question.

If this were happening then it would be considered scientific fraud. This is somewhat a different question.

Well tutt there was actually scient6ic fraud in some of the findings

Tut, I don't have the link handy but it is absolutely true that a sizeable number of monitoring stations were placed near heart sources and in heat sinks.

If this were happening then it would be considered scientific fraud. This is somewhat a different question.

U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/)


But there's a problem: Nearly every single weather station the U.S. government uses to measure the country's surface temperature may be compromised. Sensors that are supposed to be in empty clearings are instead exposed to crackling electronics and other unlikely sources of heat, from exhaust pipes and trash-burning barrels to chimneys and human graves

Read more: U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/#ixzz2fcdKB1Y0)

U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/)


But there's a problem: Nearly every single weather station the U.S. government uses to measure the country's surface temperature may be compromised. Sensors that are supposed to be in empty clearings are instead exposed to crackling electronics and other unlikely sources of heat, from exhaust pipes and trash-burning barrels to chimneys and human graves

Read more: U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/#ixzz2fcdKB1Y0)


Pictures worth a thousand words.


Odd sites (http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm)

Intentional or accidental, the data must be recollected with stricter guidelines and better procedures. A clear lack of quality control, and that's unacceptable.

Intentional or accidental, the data must be recollected with stricter guidelines and better procedures. A clear lack of quality control, and that's unacceptable.

Yes it seems the researchers like collecting data in cities and on tops of volcanoes, just about anywhere but way out in the middle of nowhere where their equipment is a little inaccessible

FYI, from a Yale study (http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html) on science comprehension:


The respondents, btw, consisted of a large, nationally representative sample of U.S. adults recruited to participate in a study of vaccine risk perceptions that was administered this summer (the data from that are coming soon!).

Both science literacy and CRT have been shown to correlate negatively with religiosity. And there is, in turns out, a modest negative correlation (r = -0.26, p < 0.01) between the composite science comprehension measure and a religiosity scale formed by aggregating church attendance, frequency of prayer, and self-reported "importance of God" in the respondents' lives.

I frankly don't think that that's a very big deal. There are plenty of highly religious folks who have a high science comprehension score, and plenty of secular ones who don't. When it comes to conflict over decision-relevant science, it is likely to be more instructive to consider how religiosity and science comprehension interact, something I've explored previously.

So with the religious folks there is a "modest negative correlation" when it comes to science that is no big deal. Look what else he found though...


In my paper, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, I found that the Cogntive Reflection Test did not meaningfully correlate with left-right political outlooks.

In this dataset, I found that there is a small correlation (r = -0.05, p = 0.03) between the science comprehension measure and a left-right political outlook measure, Conservrepub, which aggregates liberal-conservative ideology and party self-identification. The sign of the correlation indicates that science comprehension decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction--i.e., the more "liberal" and "Democrat," the more science comprehending.

Do you think this helps explain conflicts over climate change or other forms of decision-relevant science? I don't.

But if you do, then maybe you'll find this interesting. The dataset happened to have an item in it that asked respondents if they considered themselves "part of the Tea Party movement." Nineteen percent said yes.

It turns out that there is about as strong a correlation between scores on the science comprehension scale and identifying with the Tea Party as there is between scores on the science comprehension scale and Conservrepub.

Except that it has the opposite sign: that is, identifying with the Tea Party correlates positively (r = 0.05, p = 0.05) with scores on the science comprehension measure:

What was that? Tea Partiers know their science?

I know, it doesn't matter, you'll hammer your silly flat earther narrative regardless of the facts.

speech there is no correlation between research and comprehension, just a perfect correlation between research and funding. What do they say in academic circles; publish or perish?

What I comprehend from the research is that even if we stop all emissions immediately we will suffer climate change for at least the next century, so environmentalists want us to go back to the stone age for nothing. Now that hypothesis only tells us the further research is futile since the science is settled. The view of religion and science is in total accord; shiite happens

The point being science indicates the narrative about right wingers being scientific illiterates is false and meaningless.

You should read the comments from peers, they aren't fans of the process that arrived at that conclusion.

And that should surprise me? How dare he go against the consensus pulled out of thin air by really, really smart people that conservatives are anti-science flat earthers?

P.S. The groupthink that automatically dismisses any scientist that goes against the grain in this ridiculous narrative that defies logic should be your first scientific clue it's wrong.

And that should surprise me? How dare he go against the consensus pulled out of thin air by really, really smart people that conservatives are anti-science flat earthers?

The report is rather interesting. It certainly says that conservatives are not flat earthers when it comes to science. While being knowledgeable in science I am wondering if they are less likely to allow science to influence their political, religious and cultural beliefs in general?

The report is rather interesting. It certainly says that conservatives are not flat earthers when it comes to science. While being knowledgeable in science I am wondering if they are less likely to allow science to influence their political, religious and cultural beliefs in general?

Or fiscal prowess.

Or fiscal prowess.

Who knows? If you got the hypothesis then it is possible to work the data.

Or fiscal prowess.

You mean like understanding you can't spend unlimited amounts of money you don't have and that eventually you run out of other people's money?

10-15% debt is a nice number for government to work around, but incurring a 24 billion dollar bill and screwing with the national economy didn't help us any. Government shutdowns like you guys want ain't the way to grow an economy, or create jobs for FACT.

Quite the opposite. Stick to your hollering points and win a few more elections and keep your hands off the money until you get the votes.

The point being science indicates the narrative about right wingers being scientific illiterates is false and meaningless.

speech, I don't think that question was addressed. What we know is that each side accentuates the scientific data that supports their cause or view. The non-conservatives believe that man taking action can reverse the harm that man has caused, the conservatives still need to be convinced that man has contributed significantly to what we observe as climate change. Whilst some of my views would be considered liberal in your world, I stand with those who say the science is not settled in the respect of the size of the conribution man has made, and certainly not settled as to what influence we can have on the outcome. I certainly don't believe that spending billions trying to abate the climate change effect is warranted but I don't object to the implementation of sustainable technologies

P.S. The groupthink ...You should register there and lay out your opinion to them.

speech, I don't think that question was addressed. What we know is that each side accentuates the scientific data that supports their cause or view. The non-conservatives believe that man taking action can reverse the harm that man has caused, the conservatives still need to be convinced that man has contributed significantly to what we observe as climate change. Whilst some of my views would be considered liberal in your world, I stand with those who say the science is not settled in the respect of the size of the conribution man has made, and certainly not settled as to what influence we can have on the outcome. I certainly don't believe that spending billions trying to abate the climate change effect is warranted but I don't object to the implementation of sustainable technologies

It does address the perception manifested in the narrative.

We haven't cleaned up the messes we know we made let alone the speculation of the future messes.

The idea of spending billions is greatly offset by the idea of MAKING billions.

Ideas don't pay salaries. Obama's signature clean coal facility is a failure you know. Kind of like his solar investments.

Got a link?

How about a lefty site
Daily Kos: Failed clean coal projects cost Illinois taxpayers millions (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/05/1140452/-Failed-clean-coal-projects-cost-Illinois-taxpayers-millions#)
Here's one in NY that's a failure
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20080716/FREE/132542549
Here's one in Minnesota
Failed Minnesota clean-coal project gets help with its debts | Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/business/211896801.html)
Here's one in Mississippi

For decades, the federal government has touted a bright future for nonpolluting power plants fueled by coal. But in this rural corner of eastern Mississippi, the reality of so-called clean coal isn't pretty.

Mississippi Power Co.'s Kemper County plant here, meant to showcase technology for generating clean electricity from low-quality coal, ranks as one of the most-expensive U.S. fossil-fuel projects ever—at .7 billion and rising. Mississippi Power's 186,000 customers, who live in one of the poorest regions of the country, are reeling at double-digit rate increases. And even Mississippi Power's parent, Atlanta-based Southern Co., has said Kemper shouldn't be used as a nationwide model.

Meanwhile, the plant hasn't generated a single kilowatt for customers, and it's anyone's guess how well the complex operation will work. The company this month said it would forfeit 3 million in federal tax credits because it won't finish the project by its May deadline.

One of just three clean-coal plants moving ahead in the U.S., Kemper has been such a calamity for Southern that the power industry and Wall Street analysts say other utilities aren't likely to take on similar projects, even though the federal government plans to offer financial incentives.

'Clean Coal' Costs Are on Display at Mississippi Plant - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304795804579099220332096960)
Here's a doosey in Alaska



The General Accounting Office (GAO) studies documenting the waste and mismanagement within the CCTP have produced enough paper to fuel a power plant. Since 1984, this program has received more than .4 billion to fund research and development of experimental technologies that have not been proven to be any cleaner than traditional coal burning technologies.

The Healy Clean Coal Project, located 10 miles outside of Denali National Park in Alaska, is an example of one Clean Coal project gone bad. In the late 1980's, the project received 7 million in federal subsidies to build a new plant so that it could test a new kind of coal combustor that emits less pollution. After its completion, the plant went through two years of testing which finally deemed it unsafe and unreliable. The plant has been sitting idle since 1999, but still costs the state of Alaska million a year in debt service on bonds and maintenance on the generator.

To top it all off, Healy's older coal plant, located right next to the new one, now pollutes less than the Clean Coal Plant would - thanks to a retrofit on their conventional combustors. Not surprisingly, the new plant's only viable customer, the Golden Valley Electric Association, is no longer interested in leasing a plant that costs more to run and has no measurable benefits associated with this extra cost. In order to keep Golden Valley's business, the Healy Clean Coal Project's leaders are now asking the federal government to "lend" them 5 million so they can retrofit the "clean coal" plant with traditional technology.
The Healy Clean Coal Project is just one example of many Clean Coal projects that have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. The GAO has documented an inexcusable amount of waste and mismanagement within this program, including six major Clean Coal projects that are running seriously behind schedule and two projects in bankruptcy.

Despite all the evidence that proves otherwise, the Department of Energy considers the Clean Coal program a success. They say that experiments like the Healy Clean Coal Project prove that it's possible to develop cleaner burning coal plants. However, stronger standards in the 1990 Clean Air Act have also led to cleaner burning coal plants, but they haven't cost taxpayers billions of dollars in research and development.
Clean Coal Program Should Be Canceled (http://www.progress.org/tcs100.htm)

'Clean Coal' Costs Are on Display at Mississippi Plant - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304795804579099220332096960)


For decades, the federal government has touted a bright future for nonpolluting power plants fueled by coal. But in this rural corner of eastern Mississippi, the reality of so-called clean coal isn’t pretty.Mississippi Power Co.’s Kemper County plant here, meant to showcase technology for generating clean electricity from low-quality coal, ranks as one of the most-expensive U.S. fossil-fuel projects ever—at .7 billion and rising.

Mississippi Power’s 186,000 customers, who live in one of the poorest regions of the country, are reeling at double-digit rate increases. And even Mississippi Power’s parent, Atlanta-based Southern Co., has said Kemper shouldn’t be used as a nationwide model.

Meanwhile, the plant hasn’t generated a single kilowatt for customers, and it’s anyone’s guess how well the complex operation will work. The company this month said it would forfeit 3 million in federal tax credits because it won’t finish the project by its May deadline.

One of just three clean-coal plants moving ahead in the U.S., Kemper has been such a calamity for Southern that the power industry and Wall Street analysts say other utilities aren’t likely to take on similar projects, even though the federal government plans to offer financial incentives.

Kemper County energy facility - Home - Mississippi Power (http://www.mississippipower.com/kemper/home.asp)

Don't know why I am linking you to the financial statements because you will never connect the dots that lead you to why and how this multi billion dollar company invest little and gains a lot even with the law suits it has to fight over failure to meet regulatory standards.

Sorry the WSJ doesn't even hit the tip of the iceburg, nor identify the REAL issues of the energy companies.

HINT, study the share holder returns on the exchange. Let me know what you find. Then we can talk about Texas. Take off that TParty hat and do the homework.

Just to revert back to the topic for a moment.

I just realized that you actually have some highly qualified scientists that are 'flat earthers'. It is amazing but true.

Just to revert back to the topic for a moment.

I just realized that you actually have some highly qualified scientists that are 'flat earthers'. It is amazing but true.

Tutt the more "brains" they have the more they becomed dilluded into believing their own importance. They reach a point where they cannot see the flaw in their arguments and rage against an establishment that will not support them

Just to revert back to the topic for a moment.

I just realized that you actually have some highly qualified scientists that are 'flat earthers'. It is amazing but true.

Names ?Seems to me the flat earthers are the ones that insist "consensus science ' is gospel truth.

Kemper County energy facility - Home - Mississippi Power (http://www.mississippipower.com/kemper/home.asp)

Don't know why I am linking you to the financial statements because you will never connect the dots that lead you to why and how this multi billion dollar company invest little and gains a lot even with the law suits it has to fight over failure to meet regulatory standards.

Sorry the WSJ doesn't even hit the tip of the iceburg, nor identify the REAL issues of the energy companies.

HINT, study the share holder returns on the exchange. Let me know what you find. Then we can talk about Texas. Take off that TParty hat and do the homework.

Since you libs are smarter than the rest of us, including WSJ and the energy companies, by all means enlighten us.

Names ?Seems to me the flat earthers are the ones that insist "consensus science ' is gospel truth.

Ironic, isn't it? Like I said, the first clue is the instant demonization of anyone who goes against the groupthink.

Since you libs are smarter than the rest of us, including WSJ and the energy companies, by all means enlighten us.

It is strange, speech, we have spent countless hours discussing these concepts with you and yet you call upon us to enlighten you, as if our words have fallen upon deaf ears.

Names ?Seems to me the flat earthers are the ones that insist "consensus science ' is gospel truth.

Seems as though science doesn't play a major role in this. Apparently other factors such as religion, political beliefs and cultural factors are more important.

Probably should have added for about half of the population.

Seems as though science doesn't play a major role in this. Apparently other factors such as religion, political beliefs and cultural factors are more important.

Well of course goes without saying other forces are in play here, they give lip service to science just as they do to religion and politics well they are fellow travellers

Lets not leave out the profit motive, which I think is the most powerful incentive for what's regarded as scientific fact.

Lets not leave out the profit motive, which I think is the most powerful incentive for what's regarded as scientific fact.

Right now the ones who stand to profit the most is the Chinese. That is the problem with the so called "green" energy business. Its more like "grey" energy. Even in the business they reguard hydro as less then green yet it is a proven technology. I support investigating new ways for energy but the way it is currently driven it is just a huge sink hole to dump money into. We need to stop the bleeding and come to consensus as to which direction to go and stop with throwing darts blindfolded and hope something sticks.

The Chinese have been EXCELLENT under cutting global competition, and boosting there own green products the last 10 years. Heavily subsidized though. How can they lose skewing the market price wise in their favor?

Lets not leave out the profit motive, which I think is the most powerful incentive for what's regarded as scientific fact.

Yeah you hit the Goracle's motivation right on the head .

Its yours too.

Yeah you hit the Goracle's motivation right on the head .

Yes, he started a trend there popularising science fantasy for profit

Yes, he started a trend there popularising science fantasy for profit

Yes, but why let one side of politics have all the fanaticising?

I didn't think they did, one side fantaticising by wanting everyone else to pay for fixing up a mess and the other fanatasing that there is no mess

I didn't think they did, one side fantaticising by wanting everyone else to pay for fixing up a mess and the other fanatasing that there is no mess

And yet another fantasy, that our side doesn't like clean air, water and nice temperatures. Give it a rest. What I don't like, and I think you agree, is using this consensus science that keeps turning out to be flawed as a hammer for a political agenda.


What else I don't like is using the EPA to expand government power (http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/energyenvironment/322833-epa-looks-to-streams-brooks-for-regulations).

And yet another fantasy, that our side doesn't like clean air, water and nice temperatures. Give it a rest. What I don't like, and I think you agree, is using this consensus science that keeps turning out to be flawed as a hammer for a political agenda.

What else I don't like is using the EPA to expand government power (http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/energyenvironment/322833-epa-looks-to-streams-brooks-for-regulations).

Yes speech I can go along with that, kick a bureaucrat in the teeth. Along with those things you mentioned which I enjoy, we also like heat in winter and cool in summer and the ability to get from one place to another.

Hello again,

When Joshua Bass, an engineer, sent his son to iSchool High, a Houston charter school, he was expecting a solid college preparation, including the chance to study some college courses before leaving high school. Instead, the Basses were shocked when their son came home from the taxpayer-funded school with apparently religiously motivated anti-science books. (http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/christian_textbooks_darwin_inspired_hitler/?source=newsletter)

One of these books blamed Darwin's theory of evolution for the Holocaust:

[Hitler] has written that the Aryan (German) race would be the leader in all human progress. To accomplish that goal, all “lower races” should either be enslaved or eliminated. Apparently the theory of evolution and its “survival of the fittest” philosophy had taken root in Hitler's warped mind.
This 2012-2013 school year, thanks to a bill pushed through by governor Bobby Jindal (http://www.alternet.org/story/155926/the_loch_ness_monster_is_real%3B_the_kkk_is_good%3 A_the_shocking_content_of_publicly_paid_for_christ ian_school_textbooks), thousands of students in Louisiana will receive state voucher money, transferred from public school funding, to attend private religious schools, some of which teach from a Christian curriculum that suggests the Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution and states that the alleged creature, which has never been demonstrated to even exist, has been tracked by submarine and is probably a plesiosaur. The curriculum also claims that a Japanese fishing boat caught a dinosaur. So, I ask my Christian friends again, when religion is taught as science, how well do those students do on the science section of their SAT's?

excon

Hello again,

When Joshua Bass, an engineer, sent his son to iSchool High, a Houston charter school, he was expecting a solid college preparation, including the chance to study some college courses before leaving high school. Instead, the Basses were shocked when their son came home from the taxpayer-funded school with apparently religiously motivated anti-science books. (http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/christian_textbooks_darwin_inspired_hitler/?source=newsletter)

One of these books blamed Darwin’s theory of evolution for the Holocaust:
So, I ask my Christian friends again, when religion is taught as science, how well do those students do on the science section of their SAT's?

excon

You'd have to give us the data before anyone can make a judgment. But I do know a lot of my friends kids went to private Christian schools and they beat the pants off their public school counterparts. But if this guy is so smart why didn't he research which school to send his kids to, I'm sure Houston has quite a few.

SAT doesn't have a science section . The ACT does ,and private schools out perform public schools across the board on ACT scores . Could not find a breakdown more specifically or religious private schools.

I know public school graduates who are beating the pants off the private school kids too, but I have to agree that people who take those vouchers have a responsibility to know exactly who they give those vouchers to.

Private and religious isn't always better. Even though I am sure that's not what the fancy brochures say.