America dumbs down

[Treeshepherd]

Charles Darwin’s signature discovery—first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since—long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world.

Darwin's work was largely based off of Gregor Mendel, a priest.

But, of course evolutionary biology has been debated and continues to be seriously debated. The theory of gradual evolution begrudgingly gave way to staggered evolution. There was the 40 year hoax of the Piltdown man, and though it was revealed as a hoax many of the missing link conclusions derived from it survive today. Then, group selection was introduced. Now some cutting edge biologists are looking at chaos theory as it relates to evolution, much to the chagrin of other biologists who insist on causation.

Plenty of the lazy ignorant people in America are blind acceptors of academic orthodoxy.

is there any point to this, other than the not so well hidden religious dogma..

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

 

[Sonny Clark]

HINT: There is no evidence that says otherwise either. People have been trying to disprove the existence of GOD for centuries, some are considered to be the sharpest brightest minds ever known. Their results, NO PROOF !!! So, you can throw slurs at those that do believe there is a GOD all day long, but can you disprove there is NO GOD? Waiting to hear your proof, thanks.

you really must learn to read "
the answer lies in the statement and the correct one goes like this " there is no evidence supporting the existence of god conversely there is no evidence disproving the existence of god.
most believers will interpret that as meaning since there is no proof proving god does not exist then he must.
that is an assumption. with no basis in fact.
what the statement means is there is no evidence for either...

It's nothing more than common sense. Before there was anything, there had to be something.

There did?

Why?

If there was "something" before there was "anything" --- then by definition there was not "not-anything".

Ergo: false premise. Or we could say, premise commits suicide before reaching its own period.

Is there something now, at this very minute? Is there anything that you can see, touch, or smell? If so, where did its makeup begin? Remember, there has to be something before there can be anything. Something can NOT come from nothing. So, using basic logic, there had to be something to start with. Now, going by that very simple logic, where did it all begin?

If there was "something to start with" --- then by the same definition there was not "nothing". You can't have it both ways.

I just said this, and I'm not going to be drawn into an endless circle in a thread that's supposed to be about South Freaking Carolina -- not something deep.

I wasn't in any way implying two ways. I simply said that there had to be something to begin with. I don't believe that you nor anyone else can deny that. Right? So, if you, nor anyone else can deny it, then where did it come from? That's not implying two ways about anything. It's a simple straight forward question. Everything has to have an origin, right? So, again, simple logic, where did it all begin? Again, that is in no way implying two ways about anything. Very simple, very straight forward.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Another great display of undeserved liberal arrogance interesting how those who think they are always right about everything rarely are.

Who? Referring to whom?

 

[Pogo]

you really must learn to read "
the answer lies in the statement and the correct one goes like this " there is no evidence supporting the existence of god conversely there is no evidence disproving the existence of god.
most believers will interpret that as meaning since there is no proof proving god does not exist then he must.
that is an assumption. with no basis in fact.
what the statement means is there is no evidence for either...

It's nothing more than common sense. Before there was anything, there had to be something.

There did?

Why?

If there was "something" before there was "anything" --- then by definition there was not "not-anything".

Ergo: false premise. Or we could say, premise commits suicide before reaching its own period.

Is there something now, at this very minute? Is there anything that you can see, touch, or smell? If so, where did its makeup begin? Remember, there has to be something before there can be anything. Something can NOT come from nothing. So, using basic logic, there had to be something to start with. Now, going by that very simple logic, where did it all begin?

If there was "something to start with" --- then by the same definition there was not "nothing". You can't have it both ways.

I just said this, and I'm not going to be drawn into an endless circle in a thread that's supposed to be about South Freaking Carolina -- not something deep.

I wasn't in any way implying two ways. I simply said that there had to be something to begin with. I don't believe that you nor anyone else can deny that. Right? So, if you, nor anyone else can deny it, then where did it come from? That's not implying two ways about anything. It's a simple straight forward question. Everything has to have an origin, right? So, again, simple logic, where did it all begin? Again, that is in no way implying two ways about anything. Very simple, very straight forward.

No, not right. When we speak of creation and universe mysteries we're well past the limits of science and physics. Therefore none of those assumptions can be safely assumed.

 

[Sonny Clark]

It's nothing more than common sense. Before there was anything, there had to be something.

There did?

Why?

If there was "something" before there was "anything" --- then by definition there was not "not-anything".

Ergo: false premise. Or we could say, premise commits suicide before reaching its own period.

Is there something now, at this very minute? Is there anything that you can see, touch, or smell? If so, where did its makeup begin? Remember, there has to be something before there can be anything. Something can NOT come from nothing. So, using basic logic, there had to be something to start with. Now, going by that very simple logic, where did it all begin?

If there was "something to start with" --- then by the same definition there was not "nothing". You can't have it both ways.

I just said this, and I'm not going to be drawn into an endless circle in a thread that's supposed to be about South Freaking Carolina -- not something deep.

I wasn't in any way implying two ways. I simply said that there had to be something to begin with. I don't believe that you nor anyone else can deny that. Right? So, if you, nor anyone else can deny it, then where did it come from? That's not implying two ways about anything. It's a simple straight forward question. Everything has to have an origin, right? So, again, simple logic, where did it all begin? Again, that is in no way implying two ways about anything. Very simple, very straight forward.

No, not right. When we speak of creation and universe mysteries we're well past the limits of science and physics. Therefore none of those assumptions can be safely assumed.

Thank you. Exactly my point. We don't know, simply do not know. No one knows. I have been trying to get that point across for what seems like hours now. This subject has been debated since the beginning of time, and it has yet to be solved.

 

[Pogo]

Charles Darwin’s signature discovery—first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since—long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world.

Darwin's work was largely based off of Gregor Mendel, a priest.

But, of course evolutionary biology has been debated and continues to be seriously debated. The theory of gradual evolution begrudgingly gave way to staggered evolution. There was the 40 year hoax of the Piltdown man, and though it was revealed as a hoax many of the missing link conclusions derived from it survive today. Then, group selection was introduced. Now some cutting edge biologists are looking at chaos theory as it relates to evolution, much to the chagrin of other biologists who insist on causation.

Plenty of the lazy ignorant people in America are blind acceptors of academic orthodoxy.

is there any point to this, other than the not so well hidden religious dogma..

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:

>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<​

I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

 

[Pogo]

There did?

Why?

If there was "something" before there was "anything" --- then by definition there was not "not-anything".

Ergo: false premise. Or we could say, premise commits suicide before reaching its own period.

Is there something now, at this very minute? Is there anything that you can see, touch, or smell? If so, where did its makeup begin? Remember, there has to be something before there can be anything. Something can NOT come from nothing. So, using basic logic, there had to be something to start with. Now, going by that very simple logic, where did it all begin?

If there was "something to start with" --- then by the same definition there was not "nothing". You can't have it both ways.

I just said this, and I'm not going to be drawn into an endless circle in a thread that's supposed to be about South Freaking Carolina -- not something deep.

I wasn't in any way implying two ways. I simply said that there had to be something to begin with. I don't believe that you nor anyone else can deny that. Right? So, if you, nor anyone else can deny it, then where did it come from? That's not implying two ways about anything. It's a simple straight forward question. Everything has to have an origin, right? So, again, simple logic, where did it all begin? Again, that is in no way implying two ways about anything. Very simple, very straight forward.

No, not right. When we speak of creation and universe mysteries we're well past the limits of science and physics. Therefore none of those assumptions can be safely assumed.

Thank you. Exactly my point. We don't know, simply do not know. No one knows. I have been trying to get that point across for what seems like hours now. This subject has been debated since the beginning of time, and it has yet to be solved.

Then what was all that song and dance about demanding "proof"???

Ai-yi-yi....

Your assumption above is that "Everything has to have an origin, right?" --- yet in the same breath you turn around and acknowledge we don't know that at all.

You owe me a laundry bill for this soiled sheet. My head just exploded.

 

[Liminal]

Charles Darwin’s signature discovery—first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since—long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world.

Darwin's work was largely based off of Gregor Mendel, a priest.

But, of course evolutionary biology has been debated and continues to be seriously debated. The theory of gradual evolution begrudgingly gave way to staggered evolution. There was the 40 year hoax of the Piltdown man, and though it was revealed as a hoax many of the missing link conclusions derived from it survive today. Then, group selection was introduced. Now some cutting edge biologists are looking at chaos theory as it relates to evolution, much to the chagrin of other biologists who insist on causation.

Plenty of the lazy ignorant people in America are blind acceptors of academic orthodoxy.

is there any point to this, other than the not so well hidden religious dogma..

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

It's fine to debate the science of evolution, so long as we are debating science and not theology.

 

[DGS49]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking. The most interesting critique of Evolution that I have read was written by Ann Coulter in one of her books. Among her well-documented points is that the timelines do not work. Biology books are fond of showing a progression from one species to the next, but the actual fossil record has dating that is all over the map; species that theoretically precede other related species are found later in time, and so on. Read it, it's interesting.

(3) For those who wish to believe in Her, the proofs of God's existence are ubiquitous. It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that the existence of God was considered so obvious as not even to be the topic of debate. It was only when scientists posited the possibility of an essentially infinite timespan (billions of years) for the process of developing the earth that we experience that the possibility of "not-God" even became tenable.

(4) [Some] Republicans do not have exclusivity with respect to ignoring "science." Most Dems are convinced that nuclear power is "dangerous" in spite of the fact that the U.S. has NEVER HAD A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED fatality (or even sickness, if you want to know the truth) in the 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. Same goes for the "Nuclear Navy." Indeed, the cancer rate for nuclear navy retirees and retired nuclear plant workers is LOWER than the cancer rate of the analogous civilian population.

Most Dems are willing to believe any negative "facts" about activities or people they consider unseemly, regardless of the scientific basis. For example, most Dems are convinced that second-hand smoke is a killer, when there is not a single study linking increased incidence of lung-cancer or heart disease to the non-smoking spouses of smokers. The EPA (controlled by Democrat bureaucrats) is positively neurotic about obscuring this interesting fact.

And if you want to get into the soft sciences, how is it that Democrats continue to believe that taxpayers do not react to changes in the tax laws? Or that employers will not react to mandated increases in wages?

They are blind to what others consider obvious.

 

[Pogo]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking.

If they were a committee writing a religious book, fine. But they're not -- they're state legislators purportedly working for their constituents. And there's nothing about that related to religion. Period.

Point 4 is bullshit and easily disproven, and then goes into a lot of blanket statement fallacies, but all offtopic, so who cares.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I thought this was going to be about Affirmative Action.

You'd be the first republican I've seen in a long time who's thought anything at all then.

thinking with most republicans is a relative term....recent event is DC confirm that.

Every time a libtard starts thinking this country loses a little more. Retards.

Besides that, when a Lib starts thinking, he's apt to strain a muscle.

lol!

Not a joke, libtards are a joke though.

 

[AmericanFirst]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking. The most interesting critique of Evolution that I have read was written by Ann Coulter in one of her books. Among her well-documented points is that the timelines do not work. Biology books are fond of showing a progression from one species to the next, but the actual fossil record has dating that is all over the map; species that theoretically precede other related species are found later in time, and so on. Read it, it's interesting.

(3) For those who wish to believe in Her, the proofs of God's existence are ubiquitous. It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that the existence of God was considered so obvious as not even to be the topic of debate. It was only when scientists posited the possibility of an essentially infinite timespan (billions of years) for the process of developing the earth that we experience that the possibility of "not-God" even became tenable.

(4) [Some] Republicans do not have exclusivity with respect to ignoring "science." Most Dems are convinced that nuclear power is "dangerous" in spite of the fact that the U.S. has NEVER HAD A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED fatality (or even sickness, if you want to know the truth) in the 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. Same goes for the "Nuclear Navy." Indeed, the cancer rate for nuclear navy retirees and retired nuclear plant workers is LOWER than the cancer rate of the analogous civilian population.

Most Dems are willing to believe any negative "facts" about activities or people they consider unseemly, regardless of the scientific basis. For example, most Dems are convinced that second-hand smoke is a killer, when there is not a single study linking increased incidence of lung-cancer or heart disease to the non-smoking spouses of smokers. The EPA (controlled by Democrat bureaucrats) is positively neurotic about obscuring this interesting fact.

And if you want to get into the soft sciences, how is it that Democrats continue to believe that taxpayers do not react to changes in the tax laws? Or that employers will not react to mandated increases in wages?

They are blind to what others consider obvious.

#3, God is not a "her".

 

[Pogo]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking. The most interesting critique of Evolution that I have read was written by Ann Coulter in one of her books. Among her well-documented points is that the timelines do not work. Biology books are fond of showing a progression from one species to the next, but the actual fossil record has dating that is all over the map; species that theoretically precede other related species are found later in time, and so on. Read it, it's interesting.

(3) For those who wish to believe in Her, the proofs of God's existence are ubiquitous. It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that the existence of God was considered so obvious as not even to be the topic of debate. It was only when scientists posited the possibility of an essentially infinite timespan (billions of years) for the process of developing the earth that we experience that the possibility of "not-God" even became tenable.

(4) [Some] Republicans do not have exclusivity with respect to ignoring "science." Most Dems are convinced that nuclear power is "dangerous" in spite of the fact that the U.S. has NEVER HAD A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED fatality (or even sickness, if you want to know the truth) in the 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. Same goes for the "Nuclear Navy." Indeed, the cancer rate for nuclear navy retirees and retired nuclear plant workers is LOWER than the cancer rate of the analogous civilian population.

Most Dems are willing to believe any negative "facts" about activities or people they consider unseemly, regardless of the scientific basis. For example, most Dems are convinced that second-hand smoke is a killer, when there is not a single study linking increased incidence of lung-cancer or heart disease to the non-smoking spouses of smokers. The EPA (controlled by Democrat bureaucrats) is positively neurotic about obscuring this interesting fact.

And if you want to get into the soft sciences, how is it that Democrats continue to believe that taxpayers do not react to changes in the tax laws? Or that employers will not react to mandated increases in wages?

They are blind to what others consider obvious.

#3, God is not a "her".

If God exists and has a gender, it would have to be female. Males do not procreate.

 

[AmericanFirst]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking. The most interesting critique of Evolution that I have read was written by Ann Coulter in one of her books. Among her well-documented points is that the timelines do not work. Biology books are fond of showing a progression from one species to the next, but the actual fossil record has dating that is all over the map; species that theoretically precede other related species are found later in time, and so on. Read it, it's interesting.

(3) For those who wish to believe in Her, the proofs of God's existence are ubiquitous. It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that the existence of God was considered so obvious as not even to be the topic of debate. It was only when scientists posited the possibility of an essentially infinite timespan (billions of years) for the process of developing the earth that we experience that the possibility of "not-God" even became tenable.

(4) [Some] Republicans do not have exclusivity with respect to ignoring "science." Most Dems are convinced that nuclear power is "dangerous" in spite of the fact that the U.S. has NEVER HAD A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED fatality (or even sickness, if you want to know the truth) in the 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. Same goes for the "Nuclear Navy." Indeed, the cancer rate for nuclear navy retirees and retired nuclear plant workers is LOWER than the cancer rate of the analogous civilian population.

Most Dems are willing to believe any negative "facts" about activities or people they consider unseemly, regardless of the scientific basis. For example, most Dems are convinced that second-hand smoke is a killer, when there is not a single study linking increased incidence of lung-cancer or heart disease to the non-smoking spouses of smokers. The EPA (controlled by Democrat bureaucrats) is positively neurotic about obscuring this interesting fact.

And if you want to get into the soft sciences, how is it that Democrats continue to believe that taxpayers do not react to changes in the tax laws? Or that employers will not react to mandated increases in wages?

They are blind to what others consider obvious.

#3, God is not a "her".

If God exists and has a gender, it would have to be female. Males do not procreate.

God exists, and according to his word in the book of Genesis he says "Let us make MAN in our image". He created Adam first, man, then created Eve from Adam's rib. Pretty easy to figure out, you just need to know how to read.

 

[Pogo]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking. The most interesting critique of Evolution that I have read was written by Ann Coulter in one of her books. Among her well-documented points is that the timelines do not work. Biology books are fond of showing a progression from one species to the next, but the actual fossil record has dating that is all over the map; species that theoretically precede other related species are found later in time, and so on. Read it, it's interesting.

(3) For those who wish to believe in Her, the proofs of God's existence are ubiquitous. It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that the existence of God was considered so obvious as not even to be the topic of debate. It was only when scientists posited the possibility of an essentially infinite timespan (billions of years) for the process of developing the earth that we experience that the possibility of "not-God" even became tenable.

(4) [Some] Republicans do not have exclusivity with respect to ignoring "science." Most Dems are convinced that nuclear power is "dangerous" in spite of the fact that the U.S. has NEVER HAD A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED fatality (or even sickness, if you want to know the truth) in the 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. Same goes for the "Nuclear Navy." Indeed, the cancer rate for nuclear navy retirees and retired nuclear plant workers is LOWER than the cancer rate of the analogous civilian population.

Most Dems are willing to believe any negative "facts" about activities or people they consider unseemly, regardless of the scientific basis. For example, most Dems are convinced that second-hand smoke is a killer, when there is not a single study linking increased incidence of lung-cancer or heart disease to the non-smoking spouses of smokers. The EPA (controlled by Democrat bureaucrats) is positively neurotic about obscuring this interesting fact.

And if you want to get into the soft sciences, how is it that Democrats continue to believe that taxpayers do not react to changes in the tax laws? Or that employers will not react to mandated increases in wages?

They are blind to what others consider obvious.

#3, God is not a "her".

If God exists and has a gender, it would have to be female. Males do not procreate.

God exists, and according to his word in the book of Genesis he says "Let us make MAN in our image". He created Adam first, man, then created Eve from Adam's rib. Pretty easy to figure out, you just need to know how to read.

And who wrote that?

MEN.

Pretty easy to figure out, you just need to know how to think.

 

[ScienceRocks]

When you bring in the third world = your standards are going down.

Was it worth it?? Liberals?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Charles Darwin’s signature discovery—first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since—long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world.

Darwin's work was largely based off of Gregor Mendel, a priest.

But, of course evolutionary biology has been debated and continues to be seriously debated. The theory of gradual evolution begrudgingly gave way to staggered evolution. There was the 40 year hoax of the Piltdown man, and though it was revealed as a hoax many of the missing link conclusions derived from it survive today. Then, group selection was introduced. Now some cutting edge biologists are looking at chaos theory as it relates to evolution, much to the chagrin of other biologists who insist on causation.

Plenty of the lazy ignorant people in America are blind acceptors of academic orthodoxy.

is there any point to this, other than the not so well hidden religious dogma..

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:

>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<​

I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

The reason could be nothing more than "politics as usual". In other words, some of them may have a dog in the fight ( donors, pals, supporters ) and don't want to accept the idea. It's not totally unheard of.

 

[Treeshepherd]

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:
>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<
I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

The point of the OP was first to kick up a bunch of dust about how religious people are ridiculous. There was no middle ground, like the fact that many esteemed biologists work at Catholic universities. You would think the OP had never heard of Notre Dame or Boston College. The OP piles crap on South Carolina, the home of the Methodist-affiliated Wofford College where biology students study evolution as well as stem cells, the human genome, ecology and brain science. The OP defines South Carolina as a state where people deny that dinosaurs ever existed.

The OP ends by saying that America needs to come to "a uniformed opinion" on established scientific dogma.

The message in the linked article is clear; Obey the scientific priesthood. Don't question the judgement of pharmaceutical companies, errrr, doctors. Opposition to Obamacare is stupid, so just remain Grubered. Don't look under the hood of NOAA and NASA climate change studies. Don't think. The authorities have done that for you.

 

[Pogo]

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:
>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<
I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

The point of the OP was first to kick up a bunch of dust about how religious people are ridiculous. There was no middle ground, like the fact that many esteemed biologists work at Catholic universities. You would think the OP had never heard of Notre Dame or Boston College. The OP piles crap on South Carolina, the home of the Methodist-affiliated Wofford College where biology students study evolution as well as stem cells, the human genome, ecology and brain science. The OP defines South Carolina as a state where people deny that dinosaurs ever existed.

The OP ends by saying that America needs to come to "a uniformed opinion" on established scientific dogma.

The message in the linked article is clear; Obey the scientific priesthood. Don't question the judgement of pharmaceutical companies, errrr, doctors. Opposition to Obamacare is stupid, so just remain Grubered. Don't look under the hood of NOAA and NASA climate change studies. Don't think. The authorities have done that for you.

You clearly took a Bridge to Nowhere to make a leap like that. There's nothing in the story about "Obamacare", "NOAA", a "scientific priesthood" or anyone at all named "Gruber".

The story simply mocks the inane posturing of state legislators abusing their authority. There's no way around that fact.
And they fully deserve that mocking, and not just for being from South Carolina.

 

[Treeshepherd]

You clearly took a Bridge to Nowhere to make a leap like that. There's nothing in the story about "Obamacare", "NOAA", a "scientific priesthood" or anyone at all named "Gruber".

The linked article says, "Yet efforts to fill that gaping hole via the Affordable Health Care Act—a.k.a. Obamacare—remain distinctly unpopular." The implication is clear, that if you don't support Obamacare you're part of Dumbed Down America. I added the Gruber comment for irony.

There's plenty about man-made climate change in the OP. The 'scientific priesthood' is something I took from an article from evolutionary biologist Stephen J Gould where he is criticizing biologists inflexibility to change.