Public school under fire for sending kids on field trip to creationist museum

Sorry, your "science" turns out to be a religion.

There should be MILLIONS of fossils from transitional species. Google it, archeological digs usually yield thousands of fossils each.

 

WHAT? I think the left are on a genital safari....

 

Funny. Genital safari. Shall we expect the DNC to mount trophies on the walls?

 

What about the microscopic pladula? Take that and toss it on your broken record. LMAO.

This should be your new sig:

"Evolution is a religion because I say so...and I'm Gumby, dammit!"

 

Progressives are Marxists and this sex (*)(*)(*)(*) is a destraction - they don't know (*)(*)(*)(*)....

Yeah take your mind off the economy and put your hand on your junk......

We have serious issues and every progressive belongs in prison.....

Yeah their liberal (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) only locked the Japanese up - they were no threat but the pogressives are....

That destroys the libertarian ideals I hold but who cares - progressives are dangerous fascists....

 

Well, this is where we differ. Not necessarily in opinion, but I most certainly don't get as worked up over politics as you seem to. No one can destroy your ideals, so take a stand - calmly.

 

I'm boggled not worked up....

These fools have destroyed free everything - they have an opinion on what I should eat and what car I should drive while they're idiots saving the world.

They need to save themselves before they save anyone else - not from a religious POV but from a liberty POV.... Theyy need to be real liberals..... None of this "for your own good" bull(*)(*)(*)(*)....

 

One doesn't even need to look far back into history to see evidence of evolution. You can see it in extant organisms.

As an invertebrate biologist, my favorite example is that of eyes in cubozoan jellyfish. A single jelly can have multiple eyes on a gradient of complexity, from simple light-sensing ocelli all the way up to complex image-forming camera eyes with mobile irises. You can see the evolution of eyes in a single organism.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15558464

Interestingly, camera-type image-forming eyes have convergently evolved at least three separate times, in cubozoa, cephalopods, and vertebrates.


Anyway, there is beyond substantial evidence for evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact.

I think this comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a theory and a law. A law is a short statement that describes something. A theory explains the why it happens. A theory can never become a law. It isn't a hierarchy like that.

Here is a handy infographic to explain.

 

Both of those are false statements.

Evolution is a scientific fact, it's as basic as life itself. You can replicate it yourself in a test tube, it'll happen right in front of your eyes, no faith required.

There is so much overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution that it defies summarization. It's probably the single best studied scientific theory in all of history.

What's really crazy and nutty, is the creationist mumbo-jumbo fairy tale about the earth being six thousand years old. That is plain old wrong, it's a false statement contradicted by at least a dozen lines of investigation.

Who are you going to believe, an independently verifiable and replicatable experiment you can verify with your own two eyes, or the snake oil some ancient ignorant fool wrote on a topic he certainly didn't understand?

 

That's a very informative chart that can be understood by everyone. Many people won't accept it because of religious belief, but I believe many others simply don't understand. When we have leaders saying things like "teach the controversy," it's no surprise that some become confused. I'd like to suggest "Intelligent Design On Trial," a NOVA program from 2007 that chronicles the Dover, PA trial concerning the teaching of evolution.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

 

This is called an 'argument from ignorance', a common fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).
The real, perceived, or simply false assertion that the lack of transitional fossils somehow might "prove" your belief or disprove the theory of evolution is not supportable.

Regardless if the forecast was off, but millions have been displaced by weather events linked to climate changes, with many millions more at risk:

Twenty-two million people were displaced by extreme weather events in 2013, three times more than the number displaced by war, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), as reported by Reuters. To put this in perspective, in the early 1970s the total number of people displaced by extreme weather events was only about 10 million.

Rising sea levels, as well as extreme weather and natural disasters such as heatwaves, floods and droughts linked to global warming are likely to force millions of people to move, with many never able to return.

 

Go back and re-read my postings. I never said one was right and the other was all wrong , that's your incorrect assumption. All I'm saying is with the gaps in the fossil records, the theory of evolution not be assumed to be a foregone conclusion or even valid science till the huge gaps are filled with more than excuses. Someone would need to be a real stupid ass not to see species have evolved to their environment. However one would need to be of jib to believe that all animal life on Earth evolved from a single cell that sprang forth from some stagnant water. The spark of life has NEVER been replicated without injecting pre-made RNA into the mix. Evolution has so many holes in it that there is no science about it, it's a belief system just like any other religion. Till they find the fossils of a few million transitional species, evolution is simply a big guess.

 

I'm not knocking your religion, the 1st amendment gives you that freedom. Just quit pretending that it's more than a belief system

The problem is the Earth hasn't had any appreciable warming since 1998. Again your religion blinds you to the facts.



From the Minoan Warm Period 3500 years ago to the end of the little Ice Age about 1065 years ago, CO2 steadily rose as the temperature continued to fall for a span of 2435 years. I'm sure you can explain that with citations. As you can see the modern Warm Period" is rivaling the Medieval Warm period, but doesn't even come close to previous warm periods with substantially lower CO2.

 

We are not talking about my religion or lack thereof. We are talking about facts and science and logic. There is no way that can be classified as a religion. We are also talking about a false dichotomy where you continue to assert that there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the theory of evolution. Yes, there is missing evidence, some of which may never be found, but that does not take away from the massive amounts of evidence (FACTS) which do exist and which have NOT been disproven (how could they - they're facts), and as A leads to B to C and 1 to 2 to 3, etc. all of those facts point to only one conclusion. And there is no reliance on supernatural intervention involved.

 

The whole idea of a "missing link" is claptrap dreamed up by creationists. It doesn't make evolutionary sense. The fossil record is NOT the foundation of evolution. The theory would not change even if no fossils had ever formed.

In science, there is no such thing as proof. What I am "admitting" is that you don't know what you're talking about, and do not understand enough even to recognize when you're being corrected.

You might be interested in the actual evidence (which is not fossils), but for that you'd have to read science. You've been pointed to beginner books that explain it. Try reading one, and you won't be asking nonsense questions based on dishonest models peddled by con artists.

 

Oddly enough, gravity is also a belief system, because there are huge gaps - look at all the things that have never been dropped. How do we know they will all fall? By faith alone!

 

All species are transitional. You (and I) would like a more complete fossil record.

Demanding that more fossils be found is a great idea, but such a demand would need to be sent to some agency that has discretion on funding the search for fossils.

 

I would add that every fossil find is a test of the theory of evolution. Evolution makes very strong statements about what will be found and what will not be found.

So far, these predictions bear out.

If you became a paleontologist, you could join the ranks of those who have been testing this theory for 200 years.

 

I rewatched "Intelligent Design On Trial" last night. Though it focused on the trial, a lot of scientific insight was provided. A scientist mentioned that if we saw something fall up (rather than down), scientists wouldn't immediately abandon gravitational theory. They'd search for answers. This is how science works.

I use the metaphor of a skidmark. A scientist sees a skidmark and concludes someone slammed on the brakes in the recent past. A creationist sees the skidmark and claims god put it there.

 

Transitionals do exist. Our esteemed Mr. Peabody apparently isn't interested in examining them. He wants millions of species. (He claims we currently have billions of fossil species). With such a requirement, no one will be able to reach him.

 

Well, the problem is that any new theory STILL has to fully explain why everything else false down. The result would be a better theory of gravity, not a new theory.

And the same is true of any theory, including evolutionary theory. Any new theory must explain a few billion consistent observations already made. The argument that the entire theory should be abandoned because we have not yet observed a prediction the theory doesn't really make, is the usual misdirection. The underlying argument is that we accept that goddidit as the unshakeable, unmodifiable foregone conclusion, and from there we reject what doesn't fit, even if we must misrepresent what we're rejecting.

The idea that we should reject such a well documented and well tested theory in favor of a magical model which has failed literally trillions of efforts to document it (every prayer aimed at the Magician), at least to me, shows the plasticity of the infant mind, and the non-plasticity of the adult mind. So my metaphor is foot-binding and neck-stretching. Possible to do to the child, impossible to correct as an adult.

 

That's an apt metaphor, which illustrates why the topic of this thread is important.

 

The problem here is, the notion of a "transitional" is undefined. The old joke is, every time we find a fossil that fits between two existing fossils, we haven't eliminated a gap, we have created a gap! Now we have the gap before and the gap after that new fossil.

We aren't unable to reach him because of lack of data. Even if every organism that ever existed got fossilized and we had ready access to them all, he still woudn't be satisfied because he "knows" that evolution didn't happen. He'd decide that those fossils were fake, or that there was a conspiracy, or that his god salted the planet with them as a test of our faith, or whatever.

There are reformed creationists, but I'm not aware of a single one who used evidence to return to sanity. Instead, all of them began to doubt because they detected theological error in their role models. To cure theology requires theology. Evidence is irrelevant.

(I've noticed that creationists usually visualize evolution as one CURRENT species morphing into another CURRENT species. The idea that evolution continues to produce NEW species is always incomprehensible. The creationist god created everything recently in its current form, and the only way evolution could work is by producing some sort of half-dog-half-cat, which couldn't survive anyway, so evolution is impossible. And any "transitioinal" would have to be some sort of crockaduck.)