Palin wants creationism taught in schools

[Shogun]

And yet you have NO problem with science class teaching the theory of how life began? No evidence, no scientific data, no testing possible, just all assumptions made as to what MIGHT have happened?

And again explain why science is not proclaiming man and mouse have a single ancient ancestor? Man and mouse have something like 90 percent the same material. How about that mythical man/pig ancestor?

that is where you are WRONG. I"VE POSTED my evidence. There is a LOT of evidence FOR evolution. I'll start with the skull of the neandertal. NOW, you go ahead and offer me the slightest fucking bit of YOUR theory.


and, of course there is a genetic ancestor. We are both mammals. Genetics prove that we have a common ancestor. Did you want to post a link with your non sequiter or did you just hope that shit sticks?




http://genome.cshlp.org/cgi/content/full/16/12/1557
Reconstructing contiguous regions of an ancestral genome
This article analyzes mammalian genome rearrangements at higher resolution than has been published to date. We identify 3171 intervals, covering ~92% of the human genome, within which we find no rearrangements larger than 50 kilobases (kb) in the lineages leading to human, mouse, rat, and dog from their most recent common ancestor. Combining intervals that are adjacent in all contemporary species produces 1338 segments that may contain large insertions or deletions but that are free of chromosome fissions or fusions as well as inversions or translocations >50 kb in length. We describe a new method for predicting the ancestral order and orientation of those intervals from their observed adjacencies in modern species. We combine the results from this method with data from chromosome painting experiments to produce a map of an early mammalian genome that accounts for 96.8% of the available human genome sequence data. The precision is further increased by mapping inversions as small as 31 bp. Analysis of the predicted evolutionary breakpoints in the human lineage confirms certain published observations but disagrees with others. Although only a few mammalian genomes are currently sequenced to high precision, our theoretical analyses and computer simulations indicate that our results are reasonably accurate and that they will become highly accurate in the foreseeable future. Our methods were developed as part of a project to reconstruct the genome sequence of the last ancestor of human, dogs, and most other placental mammals.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not at all. I assert that the evidence we DO have indicates an expanding universe and a big bang. That the evidence we DO have indicates evolution. How many pictures and links do you need to be slapped with? My OBSERVATIONS are not assumptions. THESE are exactly what the Scientific method consists of. THIS is why you have nothing to offer besides criticism of the evidence that I can provide. If you had nary the slightest bit of anything to offer to support your theory you'd have done so. Your criticism of evolution is NOT evidence of creationism.

and, again, we can both talk shit. I find it hilarious that, rather than bitchslap me with EVIDENCE of creationism you run screaming about how im picking on you. It's rather EVIDENT that you don't have anything to offer this debate.

but please, do prove me wrong. POST your evidence FOR creationism.



[Insert Evidence for creationism here]


go ahead.. give it your best shot.

No... it asserts what happened afterwards and you and scientists insert big bang as the assumption because it SEEMS to fit in with what you have derived from observations...

there is no evidence....

And you keep saying "my theory"... as if I am one of these 5K year old earthers... please.. because I do not fall into your 'proofs', do not lump me in with what you assume to believe about people of faith... again, yet another assumption of yours based on limited and incomplete observation, even ifit is with the scientific method

 

[DiamondDave]

that is where you are WRONG. I"VE POSTED my evidence. There is a LOT of evidence FOR evolution. I'll start with the skull of the neandertal. NOW, you go ahead and offer me the slightest fucking bit of YOUR theory.


and, of course there is a genetic ancestor. We are both mammals. Genetics prove that we have a common ancestor. Did you want to post a link with your non sequiter or did you just hope that shit sticks?

And there is lots of holes and contradictory evidence and contradictory studies.. and that is what you CHOOSE to ignore, because it does not fit your hate filled diatribes against people who have faith in something more than what is observed....

 

[Shogun]

And there is lots of holes and contradictory evidence and contradictory studies.. and that is what you CHOOSE to ignore, because it does not fit your hate filled diatribes against people who have faith in something more than what is observed....

those "holes" do not disregard the FACT of this evidence and the absolute LACK of your own. Again, I don't really care what you want to believe. You are no different than heliocentrism denying hayseeds of eras past. The FACT remains that it's still EVOLUTION and the BANG that even HAS evidence to offer.

now, please, don't let me keep you from posting YOUR evidence for creationism any longer. Crying like a bitch about how actual EVIDENCE bats you around like a cat to a mouse doesn't prove anything. Your faith, again, means nothing in the realm of SCIENCE.

 

[Shogun]

No... it asserts what happened afterwards and you and scientists insert big bang as the assumption because it SEEMS to fit in with what you have derived from observations...

there is no evidence....

And you keep saying "my theory"... as if I am one of these 5K year old earthers... please.. because I do not fall into your 'proofs', do not lump me in with what you assume to believe about people of faith... again, yet another assumption of yours based on limited and incomplete observation, even ifit is with the scientific method

THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG. And, here is where your complete lack of comprehension comes into play, THAT APPLICATION TO THE BEST THEORY AVAILABLE IS EXACTLY HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS.

good grief. the appalling ignorance regarding what is and what isn't science is the root of your problem, dude.

and yes, it IS your theory because YOU are the one who insists that your lack of evidence puts creationism on par with evolution. Until you attempt of offer even the slightest bit of fucking evidence thereof you ARE no better than a fucking flat earther.


not that you have any fucking clue what the scientific method is, dude... For real. Go read some Francis Bacon. Novum Organum. for real.

 

[Caligirl]

And yet you have NO problem with science class teaching the theory of how life began? No evidence, no scientific data, no testing possible, just all assumptions made as to what MIGHT have happened?

And again explain why science is not proclaiming man and mouse have a single ancient ancestor? Man and mouse have something like 90 percent the same material. How about that mythical man/pig ancestor?

All of life has a common ancestor. It is like how you and your sister have a common ancestor (your dad) and you and your cousin have a common ancestor (your grandad) and so on.

There is certainly a common ancestor to all mammals, including humans and pigs and rodents and all else.

It may not make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but it's what the science says, and it is testble, and the evidence holds up the theory. That's what makes it science.

As to the origin of life, there *is* evidence, testing, and data for that. There is no consensus or complete picture yet, but there is science on the topic. You haven't researched your position on this! A good bit of the science comes from Jet Propulsion Labs, the chappies that give us dominance in air and space. The guys that send spacecraft around the solar system. The guys that give us global surveillance systems and stuff like that.

THEY are just fine with life originating billions of years ago, they fund science to research it, and here is a webpage for one of their scientists so you can research further:

Science - Planetary Science: People: Michael Russell

Michael Russell
NASA Senior Research Fellow

Education
B.Sc. Honours, Geology with Chemistry, University of London (1963)
Ph.D. Mineral Deposit Geochemistry, University of Durham (1974)

Research Interests
The emergence of life and oxygenic photosynthesis in the context of hydrothermal systems
Origin of giant submarine orebodies

You can read his publications at the link.

 

[42Presidents]

Republicans don't like science because it involves facts, and facts interfere with their worldview.

Kirk, your hatred for those that disagree with you blinds us from seeing any factual evidence you provide.

 

[42Presidents]

indeed, it takes a fucking grand jebus hating conspiracy to consider the similarities of scales and feathers, the FACT of genetic mutation and animal husbandry, and those pesky fucking dino bones, eh?


like I said.. whip out your fucking evidence and let's see whose sole source isn't some crusty fucking book pieced together by dogma junkies.

Damn, your rude!

 

[42Presidents]

Unbelievable.

Have any of you rightwingers even taken a credible science class?

This is such basic stuff. Were you guys sleeping through science class, or did you just have crap teachers?

That's the first thing you are taught about the scientific method. That scientific theories are based on empirical observation and experiment. That it gives us knowlege, but not truth. Evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity are the best rational explanations science can come up with. The scientific method is one way to look at the natural world. But, no one ever said you couldn't believe that Eve was made 6,000 years ago from one of adam's ribs in a garden with a talking snake.

Will you stop putting all conservatives in a bottle and labeling them! Just because a few posters says one thing or defends their position on something, that doesn't mean every conservative shares the same thoughts or positions.

 

[del]

have an almond, kirk

 

[Ravi]

have an almond, kirk

Be still my heart.

 

[Shogun]

Kirk, your hatred for those that disagree with you blinds us from seeing any factual evidence you provide.

why dont you go ahead and provide that EVIDENCE...

 

[Shogun]

Damn, your rude!

yes. I am. did you want to offer some evidence now?

 

[del]

Be still my heart.

or a pineapple

 

[plt42]

Evolution is just one mans theoryfrom the 1800's . It has no scientific proof backing it up. Creationism
has been around for thousands of years.And creationism should be taught in schools right
along with evolutionism.If we evolved from apes why are apes still around?.

Creationism is the ultimate fairytale...even better than the virgin birth. Noah's ark and the animals two by two, and Jonah in the belly of the whale. JMHO

 

[midcan5]

You dumb ass--she wants BOTH evolution and creationism taught. For the purpose of healthy debate.

Let's also add witchcraft alongside modern medicine for a healthy debate.



A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

 

[Your Overlord]

well, I'm not interested in getting into this debate very deeply
but :
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
is a theory that has yet to be proven
it plays out in theory
but cant be proven
it's an incomplete equation
Creation is a theory that is older and depends on less science unless you start to look into quantum Mechanics and Bell's Theorem
so what's wrong with just telling kids we have a few ideas and this is how we come to these conclusions
but we really don't know
some people think this and some people think that
but neither can prove it.

 

[Shogun]

I, for one, INSIST that the flying spaghetti monster's noodley creation be included in the science class or it's just going to have to get my own Ben Stein to make our OWN strait to video DVD!

EVIDENCE THAT HIS NOODLEY APPENDAGE LOVES YOU!

 

[Shogun]

well, I'm not interested in getting into this debate very deeply
but :
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
is a theory that has yet to be proven
it plays out in theory
but cant be proven
it's an incomplete equation
Creation is a theory that is older and depends on less science unless you start to look into quantum Mechanics and Bell's Theorem
so what's wrong with just telling kids we have a few ideas and this is how we come to these conclusions
but we really don't know
some people think this and some people think that
but neither can prove it.

oh.. so age of the theory makes something valid? Gosh.. I cant WAIT to reintroduce the greek pantheon! Now, how does Demeter give us the seasons again?

QUANTUM MECHANICS? give me a break. Say, an we demonize a THEORY one more time with the evidence of, uh, the most theoretical facet of physics? Hell, lets throw in metaphysics too!




chicken ARISE! ARISE CHICKEN!

 

[42Presidents]

why dont you go ahead and provide that EVIDENCE...

I'm not trying to prove anything, I do believe in some form of evolution. And I'm a Catholic, so I do believe in God. I have no interest in trying to prove either theory of creation. All that matters to me is that God did it. How he did it, I'm not really concerned with it.

But I'm not going to go around and call everyone names and bully those that may not have all the evidence or don't know the answers. There is no point and serves no purpose. We have enough mean folks in this world, I'm not going to be one of them.