Comments on: Florida evolution showdown – part 2 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/ Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:55:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: MrMiami http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-324607 MrMiami Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:13:12 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-324607 @Pope Murgatroyd: . My Global warming discussion was an illustration to show that there are three sciences to the issues and two of them are incorrect sciences. The same problem plagues origin issues. There are incorrect sciences in order to promote a belief about origin. In the case of evolution, the early science is flawed (randomness among other phenomenon are not naturalistic) then buried in the other arguments built off of the incorrect understanding. . In the case of Intelligent Design, the Christians often do not have a meaningful grasp of the science or are able to meaningfully reconcile it with the Bible. They throw out simplistic answers usually coupled with a verse. In their view God Created the science but cannot use the science effectively to argue their point. In the case, of 'Answers in Genesis' group they talk to the wrong audience which is the common problem. I reviewed their DvD set. . I have that Chuck Missiler at www.Khouse.org is much better at discussing technical topics and reconciling it with the Bible. . Creationist, who are not Intelligent Design proponents, act more like "Answers In Genesis" than they do as rational thinkers of ID. . Clearly, at least in my mind ID is the middle ground but few people have a adequate grasp of math, science, and ID. @Pope Murgatroyd:
.
My Global warming discussion was an illustration to show that there are three sciences to the issues and two of them are incorrect sciences. The same problem plagues origin issues. There are incorrect sciences in order to promote a belief about origin. In the case of evolution, the early science is flawed (randomness among other phenomenon are not naturalistic) then buried in the other arguments built off of the incorrect understanding.
.
In the case of Intelligent Design, the Christians often do not have a meaningful grasp of the science or are able to meaningfully reconcile it with the Bible. They throw out simplistic answers usually coupled with a verse. In their view God Created the science but cannot use the science effectively to argue their point. In the case, of ‘Answers in Genesis’ group they talk to the wrong audience which is the common problem. I reviewed their DvD set.
.
I have that Chuck Missiler at http://www.Khouse.org is much better at discussing technical topics and reconciling it with the Bible.
.
Creationist, who are not Intelligent Design proponents, act more like “Answers In Genesis” than they do as rational thinkers of ID.
.
Clearly, at least in my mind ID is the middle ground but few people have a adequate grasp of math, science, and ID.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Pope Murgatroyd http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-321600 Pope Murgatroyd Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:14:34 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-321600 @MrMiami, @all: Let me first apologize sincerely to you (MrMiami) personally and to the readership of the thread in general. My last post was petty and obnoxious, and, FWIW, I do apologize. Pastafarian ideals are at least as high as Christian ideals (except during piratical activities, such as raiding parties, carousing with Wenches, etc.) and my lapse was inexcusable and un-Pastafarian. However, lest I appear too abject, let me repeat my objection more quantitatively. I did search for EPA data and found two related sites: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginventory.html Both sites quote annual emission numbers of the order of 5000 Tg of CO2 for the US only. My arithmetic - and I will be happy to be corrected - is that 1000 Tg (10^15 g) is identical to 1 metric gigaton. Interestingly, the emission numbers are fairly close to what you would estimate by converting the annual US energy consumption of 10^20 J (equivalent to about 15 horsepower per capita) into chocolate eclairs at 10 food calories/gram. I think your EPA quote is an order of magnitude too low..... And I hate to argue much about your version of global warming dynamics anyway. I think I'd like to hear you debate someone who had actually looked hard at the details of energy transport (including radiation) in the ocean/atmosphere. @MrMiami, @all:
Let me first apologize sincerely to you (MrMiami) personally and to the readership of the thread in general. My last post was petty and obnoxious, and, FWIW, I do apologize. Pastafarian ideals are at least as high as Christian ideals (except during piratical activities, such as raiding parties, carousing with Wenches, etc.) and my lapse was inexcusable and un-Pastafarian.

However, lest I appear too abject, let me repeat my objection more quantitatively. I did search for EPA data and found two related sites:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginventory.html

Both sites quote annual emission numbers of the order of 5000 Tg of CO2 for the US only. My arithmetic – and I will be happy to be corrected – is that 1000 Tg (10^15 g) is identical to 1 metric gigaton. Interestingly, the emission numbers are fairly close to what you would estimate by converting the annual US energy consumption of 10^20 J (equivalent to about 15 horsepower per capita) into chocolate eclairs at 10 food calories/gram. I think your EPA quote is an order of magnitude too low…..

And I hate to argue much about your version of global warming dynamics anyway. I think I’d like to hear you debate someone who had actually looked hard at the details of energy transport (including radiation) in the ocean/atmosphere.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: MrMiami http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-319960 MrMiami Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:45:56 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-319960 I have nothing further given my responses are not being posted. I have nothing further given my responses are not being posted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Elvish Pirate Monarch http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-319845 Elvish Pirate Monarch Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:21:57 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-319845 To David Jones, ` I would like to first inform you that Darwin had NOTHING to do with the "Big Bang Theory." The Big Bang Theory was postulated by astronomers and physicists 50 to 100 years after Darwin's theory of evolution was posted. The big bang theory does not say life was created by this explosion, in fact it deals with things going on several billion years before the earth was even formed. Now I am sorry if a book which didn't see its final compilation determined till approximately 1500 years ago, had a huge number of texts rejected by the church, and which has been translated countless times over the millenia doesn't really come off as evidence to me. You and others claim that the rational mind should reject science in favor of the "word of god" and yet the word of god has been interpreted by, had parts rejected by, and was written by people. Look up the history of the ecumenical councils where the Roman Catholic church debated and argued which texts should make it into the cannon, what you will find is a huge number of texts which were rejected. Why were these texts any less the word of god then the ones the councils decided to include? The fact is that every single word in the bible, or any other holy book for that matter, was written by a PERSON if not multiple PEOPLE. You can claim that they were divinely inspired but you can no more prove that then I can prove that they weren't. Regardless they were written by mortal hands and, as you well know, humans are inperfect and can make mistakes. Is it not possible then that the writers misunderstood? A poem called "The Word of God" puts it best " The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the bible; God wrote the world." ~ RAmen To David Jones,
`
I would like to first inform you that Darwin had NOTHING to do with the “Big Bang Theory.” The Big Bang Theory was postulated by astronomers and physicists 50 to 100 years after Darwin’s theory of evolution was posted. The big bang theory does not say life was created by this explosion, in fact it deals with things going on several billion years before the earth was even formed. Now I am sorry if a book which didn’t see its final compilation determined till approximately 1500 years ago, had a huge number of texts rejected by the church, and which has been translated countless times over the millenia doesn’t really come off as evidence to me. You and others claim that the rational mind should reject science in favor of the “word of god” and yet the word of god has been interpreted by, had parts rejected by, and was written by people. Look up the history of the ecumenical councils where the Roman Catholic church debated and argued which texts should make it into the cannon, what you will find is a huge number of texts which were rejected. Why were these texts any less the word of god then the ones the councils decided to include? The fact is that every single word in the bible, or any other holy book for that matter, was written by a PERSON if not multiple PEOPLE. You can claim that they were divinely inspired but you can no more prove that then I can prove that they weren’t. Regardless they were written by mortal hands and, as you well know, humans are inperfect and can make mistakes. Is it not possible then that the writers misunderstood? A poem called “The Word of God” puts it best ” The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the bible; God wrote the world.”
~
RAmen

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: MV http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-319566 MV Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:42:04 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-319566 David T Jones you are the one that is a fool. Darwin didn't develop the Big Bang Theory. Actually it was based on the observations from Edwin Hubble that the universe was expanding and Fred Hoyle was the first to coin the phrase. Also, evolution has nothing to do with origin. Creationism as you put it is not fact. There is no proof. . . It may be very easy for someone like you to say God must have done it because you don't understand something. That is why scientist continue to look for answers, it is to easy to give up and say God did it. To say Darwin was one of Satan's pawns just further supports that you come across as one of the Christian fundamentalist lunatics. So no one in their right mind could give any credence to the crap you put out since you don't know what the Theory of Evolution is, you don't know anything about the Big Bang Theory and you believe there is a Satan. No hypocrites here. We don't pretend to follow one set of ideas then forget them when we feel like them, unlike most the Christian whack jobs that come here and act the opposite of what the Bible teaches. David T Jones you are the one that is a fool. Darwin didn’t develop the Big Bang Theory. Actually it was based on the observations from Edwin Hubble that the universe was expanding and Fred Hoyle was the first to coin the phrase. Also, evolution has nothing to do with origin. Creationism as you put it is not fact. There is no proof. .
.
It may be very easy for someone like you to say God must have done it because you don’t understand something. That is why scientist continue to look for answers, it is to easy to give up and say God did it. To say Darwin was one of Satan’s pawns just further supports that you come across as one of the Christian fundamentalist lunatics. So no one in their right mind could give any credence to the crap you put out since you don’t know what the Theory of Evolution is, you don’t know anything about the Big Bang Theory and you believe there is a Satan. No hypocrites here. We don’t pretend to follow one set of ideas then forget them when we feel like them, unlike most the Christian whack jobs that come here and act the opposite of what the Bible teaches.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: MrMiami http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-319237 MrMiami Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:24:41 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-319237 @all: . Alot of responses. I'll review and get back. . @all:
.
Alot of responses. I’ll review and get back.
.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Wench Nikkiee http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-319047 Wench Nikkiee Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:10:29 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-319047 Starbuckaneer Feb 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am "Evolution will be taught as science but must be referred to as “The Scientific Theory of Evolution” . By specifying it as "The Scientific Theory of Evolution", students will no doubt be required to learn the correct definition for a Scientific Theory! Good show :) I noticed they also added the Scientific Theory term to : The Scientific Theory of Cells, The Scientific Theory of Atoms, The Scientific Theory of plate tectonics and the Theory of Electromagnetism. . http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=478 Starbuckaneer Feb 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am

“Evolution will be taught as science but must be referred to as “The Scientific Theory of Evolution”
.
By specifying it as “The Scientific Theory of Evolution”, students will no doubt be required to learn the correct definition for a Scientific Theory! Good show :) I noticed they also added the Scientific Theory term to : The Scientific Theory of Cells, The Scientific Theory of Atoms, The Scientific Theory of plate tectonics and the Theory of Electromagnetism.
.
http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=478

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Wench Nikkiee http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-319038 Wench Nikkiee Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:53:02 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-319038 MrMiami Feb 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am "I am for one skeptical that there is this finding so far away from our solar system that it is almost conveniently out of reach. I would like to review the data myself and repeat the experiment by other researchers. There needs to be a consensus." . Oh...so you think maybe these astronomers are involved in some massive conspiracy to promote awareness of His Noodlyness? MrMiami Feb 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
“I am for one skeptical that there is this finding so far away from our solar system that it is almost conveniently out of reach. I would like to review the data myself and repeat the experiment by other researchers. There needs to be a consensus.”
.
Oh…so you think maybe these astronomers are involved in some massive conspiracy to promote awareness of His Noodlyness?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Noodly Nation http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-317635 Noodly Nation Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:58:03 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-317635 Hmm...interesting "MODEL ACADEMIC FREEDOM STATUTE ON EVOLUTION [version: 9/7/2007] This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views regarding biological and chemical evolution and students concerning their positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution. "A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT.... BE IT ENACTED BY ____________: Section 1. This law shall be known as the "Academic Freedom Act." Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution." http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php Surely such an act would be an opening to allow FSM theory to be taught along side evilution and bibble creationism! Hmm…interesting

“MODEL ACADEMIC FREEDOM STATUTE ON EVOLUTION [version: 9/7/2007]
This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views regarding biological and chemical evolution and students concerning their positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.

“A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT….
BE IT ENACTED BY ____________:
Section 1. This law shall be known as the “Academic Freedom Act.”
Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution.”

http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php

Surely such an act would be an opening to allow FSM theory to be taught along side evilution and bibble creationism!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: MrMiami http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-317468 MrMiami Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:03:45 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-317468 @all . I need to complete my thoughts on Item 2 Increasing Content in my last post. While the atoms always return to a ground state the only way atmospheric heat content can increase is by adding enormous qualities such that the CO2 atoms overwhelm the nitrogen (~78%) and oxygen (~21%) heat content. If the amount of CO2 necessary to achieve tmeperature increases reduces the oxygen content below 19% oxygen then humans have a greater problem than global warming. . One point of the Global warming exercise is to see the various sciences and perspectives that human put on things that are not always pure science. Evolution has the same problems. It is a battle of ideologies that influence science rather than science influencing the ideologies. . It is unfortunate that pliable minds are indoctrinated into wild the thoughts of pre-existing humans rather than allowed to develop into independent thinkers. @all
.
I need to complete my thoughts on Item 2 Increasing Content in my last post. While the atoms always return to a ground state the only way atmospheric heat content can increase is by adding enormous qualities such that the CO2 atoms overwhelm the nitrogen (~78%) and oxygen (~21%) heat content. If the amount of CO2 necessary to achieve tmeperature increases reduces the oxygen content below 19% oxygen then humans have a greater problem than global warming.
.
One point of the Global warming exercise is to see the various sciences and perspectives that human put on things that are not always pure science. Evolution has the same problems. It is a battle of ideologies that influence science rather than science influencing the ideologies.
.
It is unfortunate that pliable minds are indoctrinated into wild the thoughts of pre-existing humans rather than allowed to develop into independent thinkers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: dogger http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-317356 dogger Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:33:22 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-317356 @MrMiami. I must admit there was plenty of lowlands covered with water in the coarboniferous period. I just don't see any geological data that indicates a monster flood. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html But wait is that his noodlyness lurking in the swamps. LOP P-) @MrMiami.
I must admit there was plenty of lowlands covered with water in the coarboniferous period. I just don’t see any geological data that indicates a monster flood.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
But wait is that his noodlyness lurking in the swamps.

LOP P-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Ande http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-316911 Ande Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:55:21 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-316911 @at mr miami I did look into the mater of sudden carbonification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous_Period it apears that there was flooding that caused it and that there are alot of fossils from these particular sites and periods. But your conclusion that a lack of abundance in all periods would mean that the theory of evolution i false does not make sense. . "The fewer fossil records in other geologic layers indicate that millions of years of evolution are not at work. In fact, it offers no record at all of evolution." . you only need two points to establish a change. As far as I understand we have several: each carbonification period and present time. You can't possibly object to that life has changed since then you cant deside exactly when change has happen but that is not nessecary, just that a change has happened. You must then find an alternative way that species change and make it more possible than evolution or else (most likely) evolution stays @at mr miami
I did look into the mater of sudden carbonification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous_Period
it apears that there was flooding that caused it and that there are alot of fossils from these particular sites and periods.
But your conclusion that a lack of abundance in all periods would mean that the theory of evolution i false does not make sense.
.
“The fewer fossil records in other geologic layers indicate that millions of years of evolution are not at work. In fact, it offers no record at all of evolution.”
.
you only need two points to establish a change. As far as I understand we have several: each carbonification period and present time.
You can’t possibly object to that life has changed since then
you cant deside exactly when change has happen but that is not nessecary, just that a change has happened. You must then find an alternative way that species change and make it more possible than evolution or else (most likely) evolution stays

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David T. Jones http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-316703 David T. Jones Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:09:19 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-316703 Even an atheist is easily fooled if he/she/it believes in Darwin's theory of evolution. His Big Bang Theory doesn't hold even a drop of water. His idea that there was no life before the big bang and the complete idiocy that the grand daddy of all explosions occurred and created the earth from nothing but dust particles and all life form, trees, plants, grass, fish, fowl, animals, and human beings,(not to be confused as animals) proves to me that the man was a complete imbecile. It also proves that all of his followers have the same extremely low caliber of intellectual capabilities to think for themselves. Just humor me and ask yourselves a couple of questions. Have you ever seen an explosion that created life? On the contrary, explosions destroy life. Where did these gases and dust particles come from to cause this big bang? All of the elements needed for this big bang were already in existence,(created), so you are led to believe that Creationism provided all of the elements to prove that Creationism is not only a fact but the only conceivable valid explanation. I am amazed at how many hypocrites have the audacity to say that they believe in God when they don't even believe His Word. It is total nonsense to accept the idea that God did create everything through evolution. Darwin was merely one of many of Satan's pawns that he used to cause people to believe that God did not create the universe and life. When one accepts that line of thinking, they have decided that there is no God. Thus, Satan's work is accomplished. In the last several decades it has become more and more 'not socialy acceptable' to believe in God and that He did everything that He said He did, including His provision of an extremely 'uncool' eternal environment for ALL of those who do not believe Him but also obey His commandments. Think about it, did Darwin's theory vs Intelligent Design = Unintelligent Design vs Intelligent Design. Even an atheist is easily fooled if he/she/it believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. His Big Bang Theory doesn’t hold even a drop of water. His idea that there was no life before the big bang and the complete idiocy that the grand daddy of all explosions occurred and created the earth from nothing but dust particles and all life form, trees, plants, grass, fish, fowl, animals, and human beings,(not to be confused as animals) proves to me that the man was a complete imbecile. It also proves that all of his followers have the same extremely low caliber of intellectual capabilities to think for themselves. Just humor me and ask yourselves a couple of questions. Have you ever seen an explosion that created life? On the contrary, explosions destroy life. Where did these gases and dust particles come from to cause this big bang? All of the elements needed for this big bang were already in existence,(created), so you are led to believe that Creationism provided all of the elements to prove that Creationism is not only a fact but the only conceivable valid explanation. I am amazed at how many hypocrites have the audacity to say that they believe in God when they don’t even believe His Word. It is total nonsense to accept the idea that God did create everything through evolution. Darwin was merely one of many of Satan’s pawns that he used to cause people to believe that God did not create the universe and life. When one accepts that line of thinking, they have decided that there is no God. Thus, Satan’s work is accomplished. In the last several decades it has become more and more ‘not socialy acceptable’ to believe in God and that He did everything that He said He did, including His provision of an extremely ‘uncool’ eternal environment for ALL of those who do not believe Him but also obey His commandments. Think about it, did Darwin’s theory vs Intelligent Design = Unintelligent Design vs Intelligent Design.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Starbuckaneer http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-316674 Starbuckaneer Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:14:44 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-316674 Ok guys!!!! I heard it on the radio this morning (sorry I've been MIA-- just closed on my first house, FSM be praised!) Evolution will be taught as science but must be referred to as "The Scientific Theory of Evolution" and classes will allow debate about this topic so our young Pastafarians can argue that evolution is CRAP and the world was created by the FSM. I consider this a moderate victory. Now back to work. Ok guys!!!! I heard it on the radio this morning (sorry I’ve been MIA– just closed on my first house, FSM be praised!) Evolution will be taught as science but must be referred to as “The Scientific Theory of Evolution” and classes will allow debate about this topic so our young Pastafarians can argue that evolution is CRAP and the world was created by the FSM. I consider this a moderate victory. Now back to work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Elvish Pirate Monarch http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-316624 Elvish Pirate Monarch Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:39:08 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-316624 News from Florida, according to a news article yesterday, the state board of education approved the new science standards which indicate evolutionary theory is a key concept in the biological sciences. This was great news to 99.9% of Biologists. The observable facts, the empirical evidence, all have done nothing but support evolutionary theory. The fossil record, which is far from complete and never will be complete, provides overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory. Creationists are very good at PR, and they are very good at ignoring the evidence to support their view that evolution is somehow a theory in crisis. While I know that this is only a small victory, and I have no doubt those who think that religion is science will find a new place to wage their war, I will take solace in this victory for today at least. To all the pro ID and pro-creationists out there here is my suggestion to you; until you can provide a testable, disprovable, hypothesis and evidence to support it keep your faith in your church and keep science in the science class room. ` RAmen News from Florida, according to a news article yesterday, the state board of education approved the new science standards which indicate evolutionary theory is a key concept in the biological sciences. This was great news to 99.9% of Biologists. The observable facts, the empirical evidence, all have done nothing but support evolutionary theory. The fossil record, which is far from complete and never will be complete, provides overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory. Creationists are very good at PR, and they are very good at ignoring the evidence to support their view that evolution is somehow a theory in crisis. While I know that this is only a small victory, and I have no doubt those who think that religion is science will find a new place to wage their war, I will take solace in this victory for today at least. To all the pro ID and pro-creationists out there here is my suggestion to you; until you can provide a testable, disprovable, hypothesis and evidence to support it keep your faith in your church and keep science in the science class room.
`
RAmen

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Francesc http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-316557 Francesc Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:17:43 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-316557 @MrMiamy -- (I promise is the last one I psot here for today, sorry!) -- "MV, your science is really messed up as is your cosmological views" -- I don't know how is the science of MV, say MVlogy, but I'm sure is far less messed up than yours "You need to study multiple theologies and cosmologies in comparison." -- No, we needn't. We can study cosmology. Theology only can be studied as part of sociology or history -- "You need to be able to properly divide science and cosmological revelations" -- I can't see why, but are you saying that cosmology is not part of science? Sure, you mean astrology :-p -- "Origin has nothing to do with science." -- Uff... origin has "nothing" to do with evolution, science is coming closer to origin everyday. Science has nothing to do about "why the FSM ceated us" - why we are here, if this question has any sense. -- "However, science can be use to reconcile cosmological and theological revelation just as archeology confirms historical accounts" -- Well, archeology confirms some historical accounts. I can see your point, but not, the Bible is not an historical account, sorry. Archeology has disproved many of his points. Of course, we Know the FSM is changing the data. Yeah, I wonder what has to say the bible about cosmology...mmm...earth is a circle? -not a sphere- the sun rotates around the earth? It says that the other stars are also suns? Anything of relativity? You mean that the Bible -God's word- can be tergiversed -is that not a sin?- to seem not to be so wrong. -- May his noodly appendage touch you RAmen @MrMiamy
–
(I promise is the last one I psot here for today, sorry!)
–
“MV, your science is really messed up as is your cosmological views”
– I don’t know how is the science of MV, say MVlogy, but I’m sure is far less messed up than yours
“You need to study multiple theologies and cosmologies in comparison.”
–
No, we needn’t. We can study cosmology. Theology only can be studied as part of sociology or history
–
“You need to be able to properly divide science and cosmological revelations”
–
I can’t see why, but are you saying that cosmology is not part of science? Sure, you mean astrology
:-p
–
“Origin has nothing to do with science.”
–
Uff… origin has “nothing” to do with evolution, science is coming closer to origin everyday. Science has nothing to do about “why the FSM ceated us” – why we are here, if this question has any sense.
–
“However, science can be use to reconcile cosmological and theological revelation just as archeology confirms historical accounts”
–
Well, archeology confirms some historical accounts. I can see your point, but not, the Bible is not an historical account, sorry. Archeology has disproved many of his points. Of course, we Know the FSM is changing the data.
Yeah, I wonder what has to say the bible about cosmology…mmm…earth is a circle? -not a sphere- the sun rotates around the earth? It says that the other stars are also suns? Anything of relativity?
You mean that the Bible -God’s word- can be tergiversed -is that not a sin?- to seem not to be so wrong.
–
May his noodly appendage touch you
RAmen

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Francesc http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-316548 Francesc Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:01:37 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-316548 @MrMiami -- we have seen you know nothing about thermodynamics. How can you speak of String theory knowing nothing about quantum physics? Also you are mixing sciences: -- "Evolutionist teach that coal is a result of millions of years of peat build up in swamps." -- No, they don't. That's not a matter for biology, it's geology. MV has well explained were you are wrong - so better than i could, i'm not a biologyst nor a geologist. -- I'm a mathematician: -- "Here is another mathematical problem - there is not enough time for the evolution revelation to evolve given current models. Sounds like evolution is having a difficult time passing its math test" -- I suppose that's another lie of yours. Of course, I should calculate by myself. I would need the probability for a mutation in human beings -wait, IDiots didn't know anything about mutations-, and an estimation of the survival's probability of that mutation in the poblation. I promise to evaluate this and post-it eventually -I need time. In any case, that's not a difficult test and I'm sure a lot of byologists have yet done -with positive outcome -- "So MV when you remark that math does not prove or disprove anything I think you missed the point of mathematical ‘proofs’." -- Absolutely NOT. You missunderstanded what MV said, I assume you did it by error or on purpose. Math or logic prove or disprove given the premises are true. False premises can prove false consecuences. -- So, your arguments are wrong, mixed with sciences that you don't understand -you are trying to seem very sage, we are not that silly- and thus you get to false conclusions. @MrMiami
–
we have seen you know nothing about thermodynamics. How can you speak of String theory knowing nothing about quantum physics? Also you are mixing sciences:
–
“Evolutionist teach that coal is a result of millions of years of peat build up in swamps.”
–
No, they don’t. That’s not a matter for biology, it’s geology. MV has well explained were you are wrong – so better than i could, i’m not a biologyst nor a geologist.
–
I’m a mathematician:
–
“Here is another mathematical problem – there is not enough time for the evolution revelation to evolve given current models. Sounds like evolution is having a difficult time passing its math test”
–
I suppose that’s another lie of yours. Of course, I should calculate by myself. I would need the probability for a mutation in human beings -wait, IDiots didn’t know anything about mutations-, and an estimation of the survival’s probability of that mutation in the poblation. I promise to evaluate this and post-it eventually -I need time.
In any case, that’s not a difficult test and I’m sure a lot of byologists have yet done -with positive outcome
–
“So MV when you remark that math does not prove or disprove anything I think you missed the point of mathematical ‘proofs’.”
–
Absolutely NOT. You missunderstanded what MV said, I assume you did it by error or on purpose. Math or logic prove or disprove given the premises are true. False premises can prove false consecuences.
–
So, your arguments are wrong, mixed with sciences that you don’t understand -you are trying to seem very sage, we are not that silly- and thus you get to false conclusions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Francesc http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-316525 Francesc Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:32:33 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-316525 @MrMiami -- Sorry for the grammar and spelling, english is not my mother language -- "by coindicence, is described by mathematics " Of course here you are using irony. It's not a coincidence, as mathematics is the language of science. Here we agree, the rest of your comments are the product of missunderstanding and missinformation. Let's take the global warming part, were you have mixed a true and a big error: -- "Let us take Global Warming for instance. The honest science regarding the warming of the Earth is that radiant energy from the Sun excites atmosheric molecules into heightened energy states. These excited molecules rotate, vibrate, and translate faster creating higher orders of heat content. At night, when the Sun is no longer bombarding the Earth with radiant energy, these molecules disipate their energy and return to a ground state or resident level of heat content." -- yeah! that part is real, although seems to be unnecessary and your explanation is a little barroque -- "The ‘would be’ correct science of Global Warming is that man has added such enormous levels of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that the innate resident heat of the atmosphere has increased because the composition of the atmosphere has changed to such an extent that it now retains more heat. ie the CO2 molecule is assumed to have a higher ground state heat content then Oxygen and Nitrogen. Thus, increasing atmospheric temperatures." -- This part is WRONG, or more, you are LYING in order to prove your point. The fact here, is that the CO2 molecule get excited with the electromagnetic radiation that the Earth radiates. You could look at the wikipedia -it's that easy. The sun radiates energy, increasing Earth's heat. All bodys at more temperature than 0ºK radiates energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation; specifically the Eath with larger wavelength than that of the sun. This radiation excites de CO2 molecule heating it. Is a fact well known that not all the molecules get excited with the same wavelenght -quantum physics. The N2 and the 02 don't get excited with earth's radiation. Thus, a relatively litlle increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can increase Earth's mean temperature. Beeing your premises so wrong, i won't give a coin for your calculations about our impact in the atmosphere's composition. @MrMiami
–
Sorry for the grammar and spelling, english is not my mother language
–
“by coindicence, is described by mathematics ” Of course here you are using irony. It’s not a coincidence, as mathematics is the language of science. Here we agree, the rest of your comments are the product of missunderstanding and missinformation. Let’s take the global warming part, were you have mixed a true and a big error:
–
“Let us take Global Warming for instance. The honest science regarding the warming of the Earth is that radiant energy from the Sun excites atmosheric molecules into heightened energy states. These excited molecules rotate, vibrate, and translate faster creating higher orders of heat content. At night, when the Sun is no longer bombarding the Earth with radiant energy, these molecules disipate their energy and return to a ground state or resident level of heat content.”
– yeah! that part is real, although seems to be unnecessary and your explanation is a little barroque
–
“The ‘would be’ correct science of Global Warming is that man has added such enormous levels of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that the innate resident heat of the atmosphere has increased because the composition of the atmosphere has changed to such an extent that it now retains more heat. ie the CO2 molecule is assumed to have a higher ground state heat content then Oxygen and Nitrogen. Thus, increasing atmospheric temperatures.”
–
This part is WRONG, or more, you are LYING in order to prove your point.
The fact here, is that the CO2 molecule get excited with the electromagnetic radiation that the Earth radiates. You could look at the wikipedia -it’s that easy.
The sun radiates energy, increasing Earth’s heat. All bodys at more temperature than 0ºK radiates energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation; specifically the Eath with larger wavelength than that of the sun. This radiation excites de CO2 molecule heating it. Is a fact well known that not all the molecules get excited with the same wavelenght -quantum physics. The N2 and the 02 don’t get excited with earth’s radiation. Thus, a relatively litlle increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can increase Earth’s mean temperature. Beeing your premises so wrong, i won’t give a coin for your calculations about our impact in the atmosphere’s composition.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: MrMiami http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-316455 MrMiami Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:13:11 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-316455 @Pope Murgatroyd: . Thank you for your article link. . It so happens that I have an Aerospace background and studied the applied science of operating vessels in a variety of off planet atmospheres. So your article was interesting to me not as a science but as politics. . Did you know that more than 70% of the Global atmosphere on this planet is processed in a treeline above 50 degree North? Through the process of photosynthesis plants convert CO2 to O2. It is an amazing process where the global atmosphere is dynamically managed. Coincidentally that treeline is expanding. Could it be because of the ready availability of CO2? Just think Americans get fat eating all the time. Could these plants have the similiar problem? . There has been three sciences to global climates on this planet. They are: . 1. The CO2 blanket: C02 was creating a blanket at altitude trapping the sun rays between the surface and the blanket. The problem is that the CO2 molecule has an atomic weight of 46. Oxygens atomic weight is 32 and Nitrogens is 28. The long standing scientific principle of bouyance suggests that CO2 settles and cannot be a gas blanket at altitude. . 2. Increasing Content: This science suggested that the volume of CO2 was overwhelming the planet and retaining heat in the molecules. Long standing science of molecules and atoms indicates that molecules and atoms have ground states and always return to these ground states. Unless the source of heat is continuously applied, longterm retention of heat in the molecule is not possible. I think the sun has set on this science. . c. Solar Heating Cycles: This is a early 1960's NASA study that indicated that heating of the Earth's atmosphere is a 24 hour cycle. 100% of the heat received each day is radiated back into space. The heat remaining is the resident heat or ground state heat content of the atmosphere and Earth's surface. It is the correct science. . Now, your article is posing another look at the same old stories. . The article remarks that the resident levels of carbon dioxide are increasing and determined from 'actual' measurements not models. It is a return to the second science. I found the number in conflict. The EPA reports the CO2 emissions in 2005 were 650 million metric tons. Your article reports in 1994 that 6 Gigatons per year were being emitted. After remarking it does not use models it then goes on to model using interpolation of the data. I agree with the assessment that models diverge quickly and long term projections, which could be days based on the method, are useless. . A key point of your article to note is 'policy' = politics. The UN is horrid for skewing information and studies. In the Oil for Food program the UN incorrectly assessed the population of Baghdad to be millions of more people than actually there in order to promote the program which has now been exposed as a scam. Your article data source is from the UN IPCC. Hence, the article discussing policy and a politically corrupted organization reinforces my earlier remarks that Climate Change is politically motivated. . Thank you for reinforcing my understanding. . I agree that we should consider nuclear power and other cleaner options for energy. I believe homes can be entirely energy self-sufficient using a combination of solar, wind, and geothermal power. This will reduce the degree of tradegy following natural disasters as people will have power in their homes if proper designed. I have been through hurricanes and was without power for a month waiting for our highly responsive policy makers in government to make my life better. @Pope Murgatroyd:
.
Thank you for your article link.
.
It so happens that I have an Aerospace background and studied the applied science of operating vessels in a variety of off planet atmospheres. So your article was interesting to me not as a science but as politics.
.
Did you know that more than 70% of the Global atmosphere on this planet is processed in a treeline above 50 degree North? Through the process of photosynthesis plants convert CO2 to O2. It is an amazing process where the global atmosphere is dynamically managed. Coincidentally that treeline is expanding. Could it be because of the ready availability of CO2? Just think Americans get fat eating all the time. Could these plants have the similiar problem?
.
There has been three sciences to global climates on this planet. They are:
.
1. The CO2 blanket: C02 was creating a blanket at altitude trapping the sun rays between the surface and the blanket. The problem is that the CO2 molecule has an atomic weight of 46. Oxygens atomic weight is 32 and Nitrogens is 28. The long standing scientific principle of bouyance suggests that CO2 settles and cannot be a gas blanket at altitude.
.
2. Increasing Content: This science suggested that the volume of CO2 was overwhelming the planet and retaining heat in the molecules. Long standing science of molecules and atoms indicates that molecules and atoms have ground states and always return to these ground states. Unless the source of heat is continuously applied, longterm retention of heat in the molecule is not possible. I think the sun has set on this science.
.
c. Solar Heating Cycles: This is a early 1960’s NASA study that indicated that heating of the Earth’s atmosphere is a 24 hour cycle. 100% of the heat received each day is radiated back into space. The heat remaining is the resident heat or ground state heat content of the atmosphere and Earth’s surface. It is the correct science.
.
Now, your article is posing another look at the same old stories.
.
The article remarks that the resident levels of carbon dioxide are increasing and determined from ‘actual’ measurements not models. It is a return to the second science. I found the number in conflict. The EPA reports the CO2 emissions in 2005 were 650 million metric tons. Your article reports in 1994 that 6 Gigatons per year were being emitted. After remarking it does not use models it then goes on to model using interpolation of the data. I agree with the assessment that models diverge quickly and long term projections, which could be days based on the method, are useless.
.
A key point of your article to note is ‘policy’ = politics. The UN is horrid for skewing information and studies. In the Oil for Food program the UN incorrectly assessed the population of Baghdad to be millions of more people than actually there in order to promote the program which has now been exposed as a scam. Your article data source is from the UN IPCC. Hence, the article discussing policy and a politically corrupted organization reinforces my earlier remarks that Climate Change is politically motivated.
.
Thank you for reinforcing my understanding.
.
I agree that we should consider nuclear power and other cleaner options for energy. I believe homes can be entirely energy self-sufficient using a combination of solar, wind, and geothermal power. This will reduce the degree of tradegy following natural disasters as people will have power in their homes if proper designed. I have been through hurricanes and was without power for a month waiting for our highly responsive policy makers in government to make my life better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: MV http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2/#comment-316319 MV Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:16:32 +0000 http://www.venganza.org/2008/01/20/florida-evolution-showdown-part-2.htm#comment-316319 MrMiami Empirical research is any research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality. Such research may also be conducted according to hypothetical-deductive procedures. I know what it is but i guess you do not. You still have not cited your sources. You didn't observe it yourself. . As for Bransworld and String Theory, I am not a scientist but I searched numerous cites that stated what I put into the comments. So as far as my science being messed up it must be all the other websites out there . Wait I forgot, you know everything and everyone else is wrong. . Based on most of your comments everyone else in the scientific community are a bunch of morons. You are narcissistic which anyone reading your comments can easily figure out. . As for half baked ideas on the reality of science, i think your cake has been baking way too long and is overcooked. It is time to remove it from the oven. . For your explanation against Wench Nikki, you say they have little value because life at the time was not conducive to carbon based life forms, but I have seen many programs on the Discovery Channel talking about finding life in places once thought uninhabitable. For example, finding life in the deep oceans near volcanic vents. Watched another program recently where simple single cell organisms were in early oceans when it would be considered not conducive to biological life. Wait, i forgot again you know everything and all other scientist out there are crap. . Please let us know when you will receive your Nobel Prize for "MrMiami's Theory of Self Glorification through the use of the 2nd Law of MrMiami's Thermo-Indulgence. MrMiami
Empirical research is any research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality. Such research may also be conducted according to hypothetical-deductive procedures. I know what it is but i guess you do not. You still have not cited your sources. You didn’t observe it yourself.
.
As for Bransworld and String Theory, I am not a scientist but I searched numerous cites that stated what I put into the comments. So as far as my science being messed up it must be all the other websites out there . Wait I forgot, you know everything and everyone else is wrong.
.
Based on most of your comments everyone else in the scientific community are a bunch of morons. You are narcissistic which anyone reading your comments can easily figure out.
.
As for half baked ideas on the reality of science, i think your cake has been baking way too long and is overcooked. It is time to remove it from the oven.
.
For your explanation against Wench Nikki, you say they have little value because life at the time was not conducive to carbon based life forms, but I have seen many programs on the Discovery Channel talking about finding life in places once thought uninhabitable. For example, finding life in the deep oceans near volcanic vents. Watched another program recently where simple single cell organisms were in early oceans when it would be considered not conducive to biological life. Wait, i forgot again you know everything and all other scientist out there are crap.
.
Please let us know when you will receive your Nobel Prize for “MrMiami’s Theory of Self Glorification through the use of the 2nd Law of MrMiami’s Thermo-Indulgence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>