Pharyngula: Explore Evolution gets another drubbing — I’m always on the lookout for the latest strategy to destroy the teaching of science in the schools and to replace it with the nonsense that the earth was created intact 6000 years ago. The latest involves a book called “Explore Evolution” and the strategy is the buzz term “strength and weaknesses.” Another code phrase to be on the lookout for is “neo-Darwinism” whatever THAT is.
If you’ve been following the creationist strategy lately, you know that one of their efforts is to push a new and awful textbook, Explore Evolution, in conjunction with the various political bills to endorse a “strengths & weaknesses” theme in the public school science curriculum. Explore Evolution is the type specimen for that teaching technique; it contains nothing but imaginary problems in biology presented in a dueling opinions format, with creationists writing sloppy distortions of biological ideas coupled with creationists writing laudatory explanations based on Intelligent Design creationism.
#88 – Pink Unicorn,
I agree with you completely, despite the fact that I don’t believe in you either and would vote to keep you out of our biology class as well. Of course, if someone comes up with a credible find of a pink unicorn living in some remote corner of the world, I may change that opinion.
However, for now, you’re just as real as god.
#85 Paddy-O said, on January 29th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
# 84 Pink Unicorn said, “can science find ANY evidence of space aliens on earth?”
I think if you dig into Air Force classified files you might find the answer to that question…
# 91 Paddy-O said, on January 29th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
# 90 Misanthropic Scott said, “Same time you did. ”
I never said I did. It is interesting to see how “scientifically” you think.
Deciding what reports say without reading them…
Interesting indeed…
Pretty contradictory posts on your part, for anyone with even the barest amount of evaluative power.
Exactly what made you think such files either exist or would have the answer if you had not seen them?
Or, are you just blowing it out your ass again troll-e-o?
# 93 Misanthropic Scott said, “Exactly what made you think such files either exist”
#93 Since by your total lack of knowledge regarding Joule and now this question, I’ll answer out of pity.
The US gov has been studying UFO phenomenon since ’47 and refuses to declassify much of the material.
I’m sure EVEN you can figure why it MIGHT be a good idea to study THAT material if you are serious in wanting to nail down evidence one way or another…
Heh, this UFO business is even more irrelevant than some of my tangents.
#94 – Paddy-trOll,
#93 Since by your total lack of knowledge regarding Joule…
I answered your comment about Joule, if you know enough about him to understand the answer. Hint, the answer is in post #80.
The US gov has been studying UFO phenomenon since ‘47 and refuses to declassify much of the material.
And therein lies the claim you are making. In fact, that is a very bold claim indeed.
Please explain how you would know this. I think you are blowing it out your ass as usual. If you have a credible link, post it already.
# 96 Misanthropic Scott said, “I answered your comment about Joule,”
Umm, no. You lied as I documented earlier. Saying a Law can be disproven doesn’t cover your lie about no scientific laws being codified or discovered since Newton.
Either, start telling the truth or, get MUCH better at lying.
# 96 Misanthropic Scott said, on January 29th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
#94 – Paddy-trOll,
#93 Since by your total lack of knowledge regarding Joule…
I answered your comment about Joule, if you know enough about him to understand the answer. Hint, the answer is in post #80.
Scott: “And therein lies the claim you are making. In fact, that is a very bold claim indeed.”
Not bold at all. It is stated on numerous .gov websites. It is also knowledge that’s been in the public domain since WAY before the internet. (Before you were born).
#97
“Not bold at all. It is stated on numerous .gov websites. It is also knowledge that’s been in the public domain since WAY before the internet. (Before you were born).”
Just because a government says something is so is no reason to believe it, hasn’t the Bush administration taught you anything? Oh and if you think a government is denying some thing meen
BTW I was around for Nixon that’s when we learned that to question your government is the highest form of patriotism.
Sorry this thread has wandered so far from “believers” wasting time and resources in our public schools trying to push their private beliefs.
Paddy rest assured that there is probably life beyond earth the universe it just so big it’s very likely. As to living being stopping by for a visit not likely the universe it just so big. Just like god and heaven and such I wish it were so but I have seen nothing to support this theorem it all come down to faith.
Sorry for all the typos, I’m dyslectic and would get a proof reader for any real world commutations. I hope you people will put up with it.
Slam me for my Ideas please not my writhing
#97 – Paddy-trOll,
Scott: “And therein lies the claim you are making. In fact, that is a very bold claim indeed.”
Not bold at all. It is stated on numerous .gov websites. It is also knowledge that’s been in the public domain since WAY before the internet. (Before you were born).
Huh … numerous .gov sites and you couldn’t find a single one to post a link??!!? Wow!! I think you’ve just taken the title away from James Hill.
You are now Old King Troll!! Way to go. Congratulations your trollness.
And, what does in the public domain mean? First you claim that the documents are classified and that the government refuses to declassify them. Now you claim they are in the public domain. It sounds like “public domain” is just a synonym for “urban legend” to me.
#100, Scott,
Frustrating.
My best advise would be to just let it go. Cow-Paddy has this very bad right wing nut habit of inventing bullshit. Regardless of how much evidence you present, he will try to worm out of it, deny it and then tell you that you said something else.
#99, Mr. Unicorn,
Don’t worry about typos. This is a blog and it is generally frowned upon to criticize spelling and grammar as our comments are closer to speech than novels. Only if your comment is totally incomprehensible will you be questioned.
A suggestion if you are self conscious about what you write. Try using a word processor, such as OPEN OFFICE Writer or MS Office Word. Writing your comment there is easier to view and edit than in the little box on this blog. When you are satisfied with your comment, just cut and paste it into the comment box here.
And welcome to DU.
🙂
Paddy Old King Troll,
If you do have the guts to show your face (so to speak) on this thread again, I have another serious point to make about law vs theory.
It is true that I was incorrect about new laws. It seems even relativity is being considered a law, according to the wikipedia page.
However, I think your original point about law vs. theory was that laws are more immutable and more definite.
This is patently false.
First, keep in mind that evolution and natural selection are two separate things. Evolution is as near to fact as the so-called laws of thermodynamics. It has never been seriously challenged. It existed before Darwin explained the mechanism with his theory of natural selection.
Lamark had an incorrect theory to explain it. Lamark’s theory that involved inheritance of acquired traits would have had us acquiring the injuries of our parents and becoming progressively more decrepit as time wore on.
Darwin came up with a more correct explanation. Natural selection is that theory. It has also stood the test of time incredibly well, but has been augmented by sexual selection, some talk of possible group selection mechanisms, especially among bacteria and viruses, and by some more refinement in terms of the constancy or variability of the rate of change.
However, my point is that evolution, as a theory, has held up just as well as the laws of thermodynamics. If there were a set of laws of biology, evolution would be at the top of the list.
Compare this to Newton’s Laws of Motion, proven false by Einstein’s laws of Relativity. I was personally surprised to see that on the page of the laws of physics on wikipedia. I had only ever heard relativity called a theory before. Then, compare Einstein’s laws with Evolution. Evolution is not contradicted by any other known theory or law. Evolution is not questioned by any significant number of scientists.
Relativity, on the other hand, even though it is numbered among the laws of physics, is in direct contradiction to quantum mechanics. One or both of these theories (or laws, if you prefer) must be wrong at the point at which they overlap.
So, regardless of the term law or theory, evolution is not in question where many laws either are in question or have been actively proven wrong.
Care to comment on your real point about law vs. theory now? Or, has the troll been defeated and is now afraid to show his face in the light of sun? Would you really turn to stone if you did?
#103–Scot==is Newton “wrong” or only correct within a given set of conditions? Small point.
Bigger point: You think that is Paddy’s face he is showing? You must have one ugly family.
#104 – bobbo,
I think that Newton’s Law is technically wrong. It happens to be an extremely good approximation within a given set of conditions. However, even within those conditions, one would get greater precision of calculations using relativity. I realize it’s a small point. Obviously Newton’s Laws are good enough within that given set of conditions for building bridges and skyscrapers and airplanes and the like. However, for voyager, and probably even for mars missions (though I’m not sure), they use relativity.
Bigger point: That is his face, you don’t want to see the other end (NSFW).
http://tinyurl.com/yaeagt
Yea. I vote that “the worst picture of all time.” So bad, I’ve never made a copy of it.
It was almost referenced a day or two ago when that es-Miss America said that the Obama’s were observed fisting each other after Obama was sworn in.
Aren’t those corn fed beauties a caution?
#103, Scott,
Just to add, I think your opinion on Laws vs Theories is on the right track.
Another explanation is that “Laws” will explain that something happens without an explanation. An example would be “that White light will be broken down into the colors of the spectrum by a prism” Yes, it happens and will always happen. But WHY it happens is explained by the THEORY of light.
#107 – Mr. Fusion,
Excellent explanation. I disagree with one point though, and this is just my opinion. I think neither string theory nor M-theory should really even have the name theory in them. I think they should be called string hypothesis and m-hypothesis instead. My reason for this is seeing the confusion that the name theory gets from this point, in addition to the confusion over theory just from confusing it with the non-scientific version of the term.
Of course, a coworker who actually is a PHD string theorist disagrees with me quite strongly. He has confidence that once we find the shapes of the compactified dimensions, string theory will be the TOE or GUT or whatever you prefer to call it. I don’t personally see any reason to assume that the string and brane people have it right. They’ve been going for over 30 years and have not yet made a serious prediction, with a possible notable exception in the case of glue-balls.
I think strings/branes have more going for them than ID in that they don’t fly up their own assholes in infinite recursion the way ID does (i.e. turtles all the way down).
However, they are far from proven and do not, AFAIK, have any serious supporting evidence at present. I am hopeful that they may one day. However, I am also hopeful for several other hypotheses and even for the people who start from no hypothesis and try to build a model from what we actually know. (Read Warped Passages by Lisa Randall if you’re interested enough to read a full length book on alternate hypotheses.)
http://www.bestwebbuys.com/9780060531096
Dang. I forgot about the Wrong Wrong Wrong in my URL again. Sorry eds. Why do I not have this problem on my own wordpress blog? Perhaps there is a wordpress software upgrade available or perhaps wordpress.com does not use their own software? Hmm… Strange.
#106 – bobbo,
Yea. I vote that “the worst picture of all time.” So bad, I’ve never made a copy of it.
Agreed. But, it does make the point well.
It was almost referenced a day or two ago when that es-Miss America said that the Obama’s were observed fisting each other after Obama was sworn in.
Funny. I thought for years that Cheney was fisting W so hard that he was able to use W as a ventriloquist dummy.
Aren’t those corn fed beauties a caution?
Nah. They look like mannequins to me. When I hear one give a nice speech on theoretical physics or evolution, I’ll change my opinion. Until then, they look like plastic to me.
Lisa Randall, mentioned in my previous post, looks hotter to me. Maybe it’s the gray matter.
http://tinyurl.com/cyyyky
http://tinyurl.com/apjakg
#111, Scott,
If we agreed 100% then what would we discuss? I admit I am not a physicist. The majority of the physics I know about goes back too many years ago and there have been too many other things in my life to keep current with. Maybe I am an example of knowing a little is worse than knowing nothing.
Yes, I agree that Lisa Randall is very attractive. And I’m sure that her intelligence doesn’t hurt either.
I see a woman like Randall and see the obvious beauty. Then I see these guys all claiming Sarah Palin is “hot”. Wow!!! I can see how the old “different strokes for different folks” crap and all, but c’mon, …
# 103 Misanthropic Scott said, “It is true that I was incorrect about new laws. ”
I know. That was my point in toto.
#112 – Paddy-tr0ll,
Good idea Paddy-tr0ll. Switch to a point that you can make. It happens, your original point is total BS and you know it.
Law vs. Theory was your meaningless point.
But, go ahead wallow in making an extremely small and irrelevant point. It suits you well, and even better that you can’t remember your own damn point.
It was especially good to come back days later in hopes of getting the last word. Too bad several of us have picked up on that habit of yours. It just makes you more of a troll.
bobbo has you nailed. You’re a total zero.