|
KingOftheThing
the cool fool



Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
|
US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists
#7837394 - 01/05/08 09:46 PM (16 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=209467&s=&i=&t=US_'doomed'_if_creationist_president_elected:_scientists
A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution.
"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."
Former Arkansas governor Huckabee said in a debate in May that he did not believe in evolution.
A poll conducted last year showed that two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, or the theory that God created humans at a single point in time, while 53 percent believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life -- the theory of evolution.
Around a quarter of Americans said they believe in both.
The evolution versus creationism debate has crept into school classrooms and politics, where it is mainly conservative Republicans who espouse the non-scientific belief.
"If our country starts to behave irrationally whereas all the other countries coming up and chasing us (to take over as the world leaders in science and technology) behaving rationally, we are doomed," Omenn said.
The book targets teachers and the general public, and presents in simple terms the current scientific understanding of evolution and the importance of teaching it in the science classroom.
A day after his win in Iowa, Huckabee, toned down his anti-evolution stance, saying in a television interview that the question of whether to teach creationism in schools was "not an issue for our president."
Omenn and the other scientists and teachers on the panel at the book launch were more categorical, saying creationism has no place in science classrooms.
"Scientific inquiry is not about accepting on faith a statement or scriptural passage. It's about exploring nature, so there really is not any place in the science classroom for creationism or intelligent design creationism," said Omenn.
"We don't teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine," said Francisco Ayala, a professor of biological sciences at the University of California, Irvine.
"We must understand the difference between what is and is not science. We must not teach creationism as an alternative to evolution," he said.
|
Coaster
Baʿal



Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: KingOftheThing]
#7838187 - 01/06/08 03:50 AM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
huckabee is a fucking moron who gets his strength from his lil imaginary friend jesus, what the fuck does a dead jew know anyhow nothing evolution is obviously real just look at the fucking steps in between they fit together so perfectly
--------------------
|
fantastical
Strangler!
Registered: 11/18/07
Posts: 89
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Coaster]
#7838474 - 01/06/08 08:47 AM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Wow I can't believe 66% of Americans believe in Creationism, that is fucking ridiculous! In this day and age, in one of the worlds richest and most educated nations, where almost everyone has access to a computer and the internet. Talk about taking things on faith, no wonder many believe the government and think the war is a good thing. This survey must be really weighted towards really religious communities? the number cant be that high.
|
elbisivni

Registered: 10/01/06
Posts: 2,839
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: KingOftheThing]
#7838710 - 01/06/08 10:23 AM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Blasphemy!!
-------------------- From dust you are made and to dust you shall return.
|
THE KRAT BARON
one-eyed willie

Registered: 07/08/03
Posts: 42,409
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: fantastical]
#7838933 - 01/06/08 11:29 AM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fantastical said: Wow I can't believe 66% of Americans believe in Creationism, that is fucking ridiculous! In this day and age, in one of the worlds richest and most educated nations, where almost everyone has access to a computer and the internet. Talk about taking things on faith, no wonder many believe the government and think the war is a good thing. This survey must be really weighted towards really religious communities? the number cant be that high.
Many famous scientists believed in a god. 
Quote:
1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible. 2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism) 3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled! 4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts. 5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era. 6. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." 7. Robert Boyle (1791-1867) One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era. 8. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity. 9. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution. 10. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
11. Max Planck (1858-1947) Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
12. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-------------------- m00nshine is currently vacationing in Maui. Rumor has it he got rolled by drunken natives and is currently prostituting himself in order to pay for airfare back to the mainland but he's having trouble juggling a hairon addiction. He won't be back for a long while.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: KingOftheThing]
#7839035 - 01/06/08 12:06 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Isn't pretty much EVERY president we've ever had been a creationist? What's going to change if we elect another one?
|
AnastomosisJihad
Hominid



Registered: 01/01/08
Posts: 700
Loc: Ohio
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: elbisivni]
#7839284 - 01/06/08 01:08 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I can think of plenty of good reasons for people to question Darwinian dogmatism.
Foremost is the origin of life problem. The standard evolutionary story posits that life emerged from a prebiotic soup of naturally formed organic molecules in some sunlit pound or lagoon in a reducing atmosphere billions of years ago, shortly after the oceans formed. This is extremely unlikely for several reasons.
- Life uses only left handed isomers of amino acids and right handed isomers of nucleic acids, but any known natural process produces these isomers in equal quantities. Even if enough of the correct amino acids were produced to build a self replicating protein, the supposed starting point of life, the odds of getting enough of the left handed isomers together in one spot without interference from the right handed isomers would be very long in a naturally racemic solution.
- In an aqueous solution polypeptide chains (proteins) tend to break apart, not come together.
- The same ultraviolet radiation and lightning strikes posited as an energy source for synthesizing amino acids tend to break down proteins, not synthesize them.
- All experiments that have successfully synthesized amino acids from gasses in a simulated reducing atmosphere have also produced other acids in far greater concentrations, including large quantities of formic acid, the active component in bee and ant venom, which is very effective at breaking down proteins.
- There is no evidence that Earth's atmosphere was ever reducing to begin with. The reducing atmosphere hypothesis is based solely on the ability of such an atmosphere to spontaneously generate organic molecules.
- Even using large organic molecules derived from living things and state of the art laboratories to simulate a wide spectrum of possible initial conditions, scientists have not been able to synthesize life from non-life.
From a purely chemical point of view, it would take a miracle for life to emerge from non-life in the shallow waters of early earth. This, however, is a miracle that Neo-Darwinists hold unquestioned while ridiculing creationists for their silly belief in miracles.
Secondly, there is the speciation problem. According to the Darwinian theory, new species form by a process of mutation and natural selection. Natural selection only ever removes genes, never adding them. The fittest organisms survive while the less fit are weeded out, thereby reducing the depth of the gene pool. There is plenty of room for variation within a genome, and new phenotypes can come about as a result of environmental pressures and natural selection, but a speciation event requires new genes not present in the current species' gene-pool.
The Neo-Darwinists claim that new genes arise through random mutations, providing the building blocks for new species. But, beneficial mutation events are very rare. A random beneficial mutation is analogous to improving a computer program by deleting a line of its code and replacing it with blind strokes on the keyboard. Such beneficial mutations can certainly happen, but not very often. Most mutations are deleterious, reducing the fitness of the organism. Given the spectacular diversity of life on earth, and the astronomical number of base pair combinations required to encode that life, it would be nothing short of a miracle for all those genes to come about though random beneficial mutations. There simply is not enough time since Earth formed for random beneficial mutations to account for the millions of species alive today. It would be a miracle if it actually happened that way. The time problem becomes especially acute when considering the short time frame in which all the major animal phyla emerged during the Cambrian explosion.
Speciation by mutation and natural selection is another dogma many biologists expect folks to accept without question, or else be labeled as ignorant and unscientific, but their story is no more scientific than the creation account given in Genesis; both are highly unlikely.
At this point the only rigorously honest position to take on the question of how all the different forms of life arose on the Earth is to say we really don't know. Dogmatic adherence to myth, be it creation myth or evolution myth, will not move us toward finding out how it really happened.
When Huckabee said he did not believe in evolution, he was probably referring the Neo-Darwinian myth, and if that is the case, his lack of acquiescence to an unscientific dogma is a good thing.
-------------------- come together
Edited by AnastomosisJihad (01/06/08 03:52 PM)
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
#7839510 - 01/06/08 01:46 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
The idea of evolution and of a being creating everything AREN'T mutually exclusive.
I mean.. everything that evolved had to come from somewhere in order to evolve FROM it, right?
And the big bang theory is bullshit. The big bang isn't the begining of everything. In order for a BIG BANG to happen there had to be something there first. No matter how many causes you can think of to explain how something came about, the fact that there *IS* a cause by definition means that somethere happened before. And to have something happen you have to have THINGS that existed before.
These are the questions I asked myself when I was doing acid a lot years ago which turned from FROM atheist to just being plain agnostic. I realized that there has to be SOMETHING out there. I don't think it's some all knowing humanoid with a white beard and robe but there's gotta be something. You can only explain so much through cause and effect but you'll never be able to answer where the beginning of EVERYTHING came from... ever. This is the one question I could NEVER answer which destroyed my idea that absolute atheism is the only way to go.
I think it's simple minded to call believers in creationism "stupid" or the idea "stupid" at all. The people who call creationists STUPID are people that can't even answer the question "where did the universe get created" themselves.
Everyone has their own theories and there isn't a SINGLE person on the planet who knows for sure. Thinking you're 100% right and there's no room for everyone and thinking that everyone else is stupid only proves that person's OWN stupidity and lack of wisdom.
I *DO* have a problem with creationists that push their shit on everyone else as if it's the ONLY possible explanation, though. It's such a widely accepted belief that I *DO* think it SHOULD be taught in schools... but only alongside other theaories as well. I also have a problem with atheists who push their beliefs and call everyone else stupid as well.
Edited by BrAiN (01/06/08 01:56 PM)
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7839843 - 01/06/08 02:43 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
It should be taught in science class? That's the issue.
Also, I've rarely heard a physicist refer to the Big Bang as the beginning of everything - just the beginning of the expanding universe we live in (or on, I guess).
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
elbisivni

Registered: 10/01/06
Posts: 2,839
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: AnastomosisJihad]
#7840162 - 01/06/08 03:38 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Interesting..
Thanks for getting a bit in depth
-------------------- From dust you are made and to dust you shall return.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Gijith]
#7840234 - 01/06/08 04:04 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gijith said: It should be taught in science class? That's the issue.
Also, I've rarely heard a physicist refer to the Big Bang as the beginning of everything - just the beginning of the expanding universe we live in (or on, I guess).
Good question. As an alternative theory to a scientific theory maybe it should be b at least brought up during a science class at least. Evolution *is* technically just a theory. "Where it all came from" is about as philisophical of a question as it is scientific so I see no harm bringing up creationism in a science class if it's in this particular context. Just because you're bringing it up, doesn't mean you're shoving it down people's throats.
IMO, the more viewpoints presented on a subject, the better off people are. Knowledge is power :P
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7840404 - 01/06/08 04:50 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
And evolution is taught as a theory, always. The same way the big bang and plate tectonics are taught as theories.
As long as creationism is mentioned as an alternative belief, as opposed to an alternative scientific theory, I guess it's alright. Still, as a science teacher, how is it my job to start delving into discussion of some almighty divine being who operates outside the confines of science?
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
allreadyused
The Liquor



Registered: 09/10/07
Posts: 480
Loc: Trailer Park, Nova Scotia
Last seen: 8 years, 23 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7840559 - 01/06/08 05:31 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said: Isn't pretty much EVERY president we've ever had been a creationist? What's going to change if we elect another one?
Yes. Nothing, other than me having to dislike some new guy.
-------------------- Everything I say is for entertainment. Fuck the ASPCA
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger


Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: KingOftheThing]
#7840564 - 01/06/08 05:33 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Evolution vs Creationism is not what is going to doom the US. This is merely another issue to be distracted by while very disastrous people destroy our country from the inside.
Our foreign and economic policies will doom us, not whether a president believes some god waved a magic wand and the earth appeared. Lets stick to the real issues.
-------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Gijith]
#7840665 - 01/06/08 06:01 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gijith said: Still, as a science teacher, how is it my job to start delving into discussion of some almighty divine being who operates outside the confines of science?
Simply because of the popularity. If some loney cult believes in something.. who cares.... but I think if such a HUGE number of people believe in it... (including jews/muslims/etc.. not limited to christianity) then something THAT significant should at least be MENTIONED.
|
Syle
Kenai Sigh


Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 6,678
Loc: WA
Last seen: 10 months, 26 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: RosettaStoned]
#7840673 - 01/06/08 06:03 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RosettaStoned said: Evolution vs Creationism is not what is going to doom the US. This is merely another issue to be distracted by while very disastrous people destroy our country from the inside.
Our foreign and economic policies will doom us, not whether a president believes some god waved a magic wand and the earth appeared. Lets stick to the real issues.
-------------------- https://kenaisigh.bandcamp.com/ <- Just completed the 2021 RPM challenge for February - An EP in one month (5 songs or 20 minutes). Check it out!
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Syle]
#7840677 - 01/06/08 06:04 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
test.... browser freaking out
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7840791 - 01/06/08 06:41 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said: Isn't pretty much EVERY president we've ever had been a creationist? What's going to change if we elect another one?
are any of the candidates running for president in 2008 not creationist?
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: lonestar2004]
#7840892 - 01/06/08 07:15 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Maybe Hillary.. for she thinks she is God and all humans are spawns of her seed that owe her homage
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7841016 - 01/06/08 07:42 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I just love watching the Bitch freefall! I would pay $$$$$$ to watch her concession/withdrawal speech on pay-per-view.
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: lonestar2004]
#7841122 - 01/06/08 08:06 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Damn straight
|
KingOftheThing
the cool fool



Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: lonestar2004]
#7841998 - 01/06/08 11:54 PM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
creationists are in denial, we shouldnt be anti intellectual. just because a large amount of americans are uniformed and in denial doesnt mean we should teach their horse shit in a science class.
|
SoY
I am the LizardKing



Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 774
Loc: Everywhere
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: KingOftheThing]
#7842048 - 01/07/08 12:16 AM (16 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
creationists are in denial, we shouldnt be anti intellectual. just because a large amount of americans are uniformed and in denial doesnt mean we should teach their horse shit in a science class.
--------------------
   "The choiceless truth of who you are is revealed to be permanently here permeating everything. Not a thing and not separate from anything."--Gaganji "Yesterday is but today's memory and tomorrow is today's dream." "My karma ran over my dogma!"
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: SoY]
#7842444 - 01/07/08 06:28 AM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
This piece probably has little to do with evolution. The reality is that government funding for scientific research is at an all-time low. This is often blamed on right-wing "anti-science" policies, not the evolution debate per se.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: badchad]
#7842454 - 01/07/08 06:35 AM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
> The reality is that government funding for scientific research is at an all-time low.
Why should the government be funding scientific research? I must have missed the part in the US constitution that says, "Congress shall tax the people in order to provide funding for scientific research."
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Seuss]
#7842482 - 01/07/08 06:58 AM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
One day I'll take the time to read the entire constitution, but it's probably broad and ambiguous enough to give the legislature enough power to do this...
And if a majority of ELECTED officials (who supposedly represent the people's interests) think their constituents (sp?) would agree with the idea... why not do it?
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7842498 - 01/07/08 07:11 AM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
One day I'll take the time to read the entire constitution, but it's probably broad and ambiguous enough to give the legislature enough power to do this...
Actually, it isn't.
Quote:
And if a majority of ELECTED officials (who supposedly represent the people's interests) think their constituents (sp?) would agree with the idea... why not do it?
Substitute "slavery" for "scientific research" and ask yourself the same question.
Phred
--------------------
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Phred]
#7842512 - 01/07/08 07:30 AM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Sure there is:
Quote:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
That's quoted DIRECTLY from the constitution. Article 1, Section 8
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.text.html
How much more abiguous can you get than "General Welfare"?
Of all the judges out there on the Seupreme Court, you don't think there'd be a few that would lump scientific research to benefit human health as "General Welfare"? What about money for space sciences? Wouldn't it be the "General Welfare" of the public to know if/when an asteroid is going to hit earth or if the carbon we're emitting is actually destroying the ozone.. or any other scientific research that's federally funded?
If you STILL manage to wiggle your way out of admitting that Congres has the power to federally fund scientific research, you have to admit the wording, at least, warrants a review from the JUDICIAL BRANCH to determine if certain things (like scientific research) belong in the category of "General Welfare". If the founding fathers thought the constitution was obvious and black&white to everyone, they never would have created the judicial branch for the purpose of INTERPRETING the constitution.
Edited by BrAiN (01/07/08 07:38 AM)
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Seuss]
#7842524 - 01/07/08 07:37 AM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: Why should the government be funding scientific research? I must have missed the part in the US constitution that says, "Congress shall tax the people in order to provide funding for scientific research."
Some would argue that gaining knowledge and insight through scientific advancement is a good thing. The majority of science done at Universities would not receive private funding as it would not yield anything profitable.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: badchad]
#7842528 - 01/07/08 07:39 AM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badchad said:
Quote:
Seuss said: Why should the government be funding scientific research? I must have missed the part in the US constitution that says, "Congress shall tax the people in order to provide funding for scientific research."
Some would argue that gaining knowledge and insight through scientific advancement is a good thing. The majority of science done at Universities would not receive private funding as it would not yield anything profitable.
I wonder how much of the funding to universities are handed down from the feds. I'd imagine most of their money comes from the state, hence why we have such imbalances in tuition from state to state (U of of MD is like 3500+ a semester where U of Cal is more like 1800).
|
eve69
--=..Did Adam and ...?=--



Registered: 04/30/03
Posts: 3,910
Loc: isle de la muerte
Last seen: 24 days, 9 hours
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7842534 - 01/07/08 07:41 AM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Creationism is not knowledge it is faith. This is the difference. Strange how nobody mentions the issue that teaching a faith in school. This is not an issue of teaching conflicting 'theories' but rather an issue of teaching theory versus faith. Theories have the potential to be disproven, whereas faith does not. Strange how the most brilliant posters on this topic above seem to not see the obvious schism and argue the topics each on its own merit. There is no merit in teaching faith in public schools which are run by the government, in the United States which are founded upon the idea of self governance of belief. If people cannot see that simple fact then there's little hope for the country remaining a viable source of supposed freedom upon this Earth.
-------------------- ...or something
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7842556 - 01/07/08 07:53 AM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
> The majority of science done at Universities would not receive private funding as it would not yield anything profitable
The vast majority of the research that I was involved with in the university setting was funded by private corporations rather than government.
> and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
The "general welfare" is the kicker... I don't have time right now to back my position, but in general most government backed scientific research ends up belonging to the researcher (or institute) rather than the government. I co-own patents (along with the university) for research that I did that was payed for by you, the tax payer. The university makes money, via licensing of these patents, and the government gets nothing in return other than a good feeling for spending your tax money on my research.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Seuss]
#7842603 - 01/07/08 08:15 AM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I would guess that it depends on the type of research.
The vast majority of research I have been involved in is government funded. This is because it produced a scientific finding. It produced "results", rather than something that was tangible and able to be patented.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: eve69]
#7842721 - 01/07/08 09:08 AM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
eve69 said: Creationism is not knowledge it is faith. This is the difference. Strange how nobody mentions the issue that teaching a faith in school. This is not an issue of teaching conflicting 'theories' but rather an issue of teaching theory versus faith. Theories have the potential to be disproven, whereas faith does not. Strange how the most brilliant posters on this topic above seem to not see the obvious schism and argue the topics each on its own merit. There is no merit in teaching faith in public schools which are run by the government, in the United States which are founded upon the idea of self governance of belief. If people cannot see that simple fact then there's little hope for the country remaining a viable source of supposed freedom upon this Earth.
I believe in evolution just like you guys, but I still think it's just a theory. And to belief in a theory, like you said, requires faith.
Then again, I think even Atheism requires faith.
I think saying America is "doomed" if we, as a whole, don't accept evolution is pretty silly. Just because people have religious beliefs doesn't mean we're doomed.
I only think we're "doomed" if our parents get so lazy they rely on schools and tv to teach their kids everything about life.
I believe in evolution and I don't give a fuck if they mention creationism in school. I'm just talking about it simply being mentioned alongside other parallel beliefs about how the universe started somewhere in a chapter in their textbook that deals with the universe. "Where we all came from in the beginning" is a completely philisophical question which is hard to seperate from science.. and it's the one question that will NEVER be proven scientifically so you might as well teach your kid from an early age that there is no science without philosophy and no philisophy without science.
The fear of having creationism presented when your kid is learning about the universe.... is about as absurd as the fear of having your kid turn gay just because gay people are allowed to marry. What's to fear?
In the end, when my kid gets home. I'll just tell him/her what I believe and that he can make up his own opinion.... At least if he learns about creationism in school he'll know what kind of people he has to deal with on a daily basis. School should teach more than just arts and sciences. A good school should prepare your kid for the real world and help him adapt socially to the real world.
Ever meet a kid who was homeschooled their whole life? My roommate in college was. She was hot as hell, yet the most socially inept person on the planet because her parents shielded her from even HEARING about any viewpoints alternative to the ones they believed. Your kids have to learn to interact and get along with people who believe different ideas *eventually*. I'd rather my kids at least KNOW about the different popular perspectives there are in life so they'll learn how to deal with people at an earlier age.
I'd rather he learn about as many different viewpoints as possible so he can make a more informed decision about what he decides to believe.
Fuck it. I say leave it at the state level, not federal level to determine what to teach. If some rednecks in Arkansas want to teach creationism in school AS FACT instead of a theory... fucking more power to them. Everything will balance out. They'll start cranking out less and less phd's and eventually become more of a laughing stock. If that's how a state wants to handle it.. let them.. I'll just move my kids to a state where they have a curriculum I like.
Edited by BrAiN (01/07/08 09:29 AM)
|
eve69
--=..Did Adam and ...?=--



Registered: 04/30/03
Posts: 3,910
Loc: isle de la muerte
Last seen: 24 days, 9 hours
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7843412 - 01/07/08 12:48 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
It's not about presentation of different viewpoints, it's about presentation of religious viewpoints becoming a precident for teaching only religious viewpoints.
-------------------- ...or something
|
eve69
--=..Did Adam and ...?=--



Registered: 04/30/03
Posts: 3,910
Loc: isle de la muerte
Last seen: 24 days, 9 hours
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: eve69]
#7843414 - 01/07/08 12:49 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
The amazing thing about stupid people is that they always think they understand what's going on even when they have it backwards.
-------------------- ...or something
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: eve69]
#7843416 - 01/07/08 12:50 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
If you guys are just worried about a slippery slope than I can understand that, at least
|
Arp
roving mycophagist


Registered: 04/20/98
Posts: 2,191
Loc: in a van by the river
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7843475 - 01/07/08 01:08 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
it's pretty meaningless to teach kids creationism in school. religion is a blind faith. science is theory based on observation that can be practically applied.
let them parents teach their kids about creationism.
|
Syle
Kenai Sigh


Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 6,678
Loc: WA
Last seen: 10 months, 26 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Arp]
#7843480 - 01/07/08 01:10 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Arp said: it's pretty meaningless to teach kids creationism in school. religion is a blind faith. science is theory based on observation that can be practically applied.
let them parents teach their kids about creationism.
certain aspects of religion can be applicably applied too. define "applicable" too...what's applicable to one person may be different for another.
-------------------- https://kenaisigh.bandcamp.com/ <- Just completed the 2021 RPM challenge for February - An EP in one month (5 songs or 20 minutes). Check it out!
|
Arp
roving mycophagist


Registered: 04/20/98
Posts: 2,191
Loc: in a van by the river
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Syle]
#7843535 - 01/07/08 01:22 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Agnosticism is pretty much the same. Why reinvent the wheel? There's obviously an agenda behind "creationism".
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7843574 - 01/07/08 01:32 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
BrAiN,
I have to say I agree with KOTT. The single greatest determining factor of the US's long term success will be how well we educate in Math and Science. IMO, nothing else comes close. We need to be able to compete in these areas. And based on all the rankings, all the available evidence, we could very well be overtaken by countries who put a greater emphasis on these subjects and have been doing a better job teaching them.
I teach science, mostly geology. There is an incredible amount of very convincing evidence that the earth is billions of years old. The general consensus is that it's about 4.54 billion years. Is this a fact? Hell, no. Actually, that number will almost certainly change as new evidence becomes available. What's important is that we've created a model, backed up by a shit load of evidence and generally agreed upon. That's exactly how I teach it (minus the profanity).
There's a large number of people in this country who would rather that I give equal time to this opposing "theory": the Earth was most likely created by a series of catastrophic events over the course of, let's say, 6 days. And is now approximately, let's say, 6011 years old. They'll say, well we need to teach this, in science class, because it represents a different, and popular, point of view. The problem is that it's not, in any way, scientific. In fact, it contradicts pretty much every established theory within geology. If I have to stop every time I'm teaching on, say, dinosaur fossils, and say "remember, scientists believe dinosaurs lived and went extinct millions of years ago... but there's also another perspective of thought that says they coexisted with man," then yes, this country would be motherfucking doomed.
If there's a widely held belief that ignorance is spelled with an E, instead of an O, should we make sure to cover both viewpoints on how to spell it? How about if a bunch of rednecks believe that AIDs was delivered to Earth to wipe out homosexuals? Certainly an alternate viewpoint! What's the point of school if it's simply a place to present various - often completely baseless - ideas which contradict each other?
Here kids: 1+1=2, 1+1=9, 1+1=W. I'm not going to teach you which one is right. Take your pick. Next week, I'll let you take your pick with multiplication. Then, when you try to learn calculus, it'll surely make sense.
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
marz13
Unseen



Registered: 10/30/07
Posts: 155
Loc: Arizona
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: KingOftheThing]
#7843581 - 01/07/08 01:33 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
The earth is dying at a fast rate. Soon the world will end and then when its all over we can see who was right. Science nor governments can save earth. In fact, Science has done way more harm than good. Its too late to save earth.
Here are some pictures of your beloved scientist hard at work.





Caused by new weapons made by American scientist. Given to Israel as a gift.

|
Syle
Kenai Sigh


Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 6,678
Loc: WA
Last seen: 10 months, 26 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: marz13]
#7843640 - 01/07/08 01:46 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I could post 100x more pics of the terrible things that have been done in the name of religion, so don't go there.
I just disagree with this thread on the basis that it's just fear-mongering from the left: the US is DOOMED if a religious President is elected.
Give me a fucking break
-------------------- https://kenaisigh.bandcamp.com/ <- Just completed the 2021 RPM challenge for February - An EP in one month (5 songs or 20 minutes). Check it out!
|
marz13
Unseen



Registered: 10/30/07
Posts: 155
Loc: Arizona
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Syle]
#7843655 - 01/07/08 01:50 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Religion does sick ass. But so does science.
|
Syle
Kenai Sigh


Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 6,678
Loc: WA
Last seen: 10 months, 26 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: marz13]
#7843672 - 01/07/08 01:54 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
marz13 said: Religion does sick ass. But so does science.
No, each of these can do sick things in the hands of the wrong people.
-------------------- https://kenaisigh.bandcamp.com/ <- Just completed the 2021 RPM challenge for February - An EP in one month (5 songs or 20 minutes). Check it out!
|
marz13
Unseen



Registered: 10/30/07
Posts: 155
Loc: Arizona
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Syle]
#7843699 - 01/07/08 02:01 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
In the hands of wicked men. Last time I checked there were more wicked than good. I'm just saying, the earth is dying and no one can heal it. Religion and governments are to blame. With the help of science of course.
|
Syle
Kenai Sigh


Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 6,678
Loc: WA
Last seen: 10 months, 26 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: marz13]
#7843704 - 01/07/08 02:03 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
marz13 said: In the hands of wicked men. Last time I checked there were more wicked than good. I'm just saying, the earth is dying and no one can heal it. Religion and governments are to blame. With the help of science of course.
All 3 of which have been an evolutionarily natural step in the history of mankind. So, you basically despise your own species?
-------------------- https://kenaisigh.bandcamp.com/ <- Just completed the 2021 RPM challenge for February - An EP in one month (5 songs or 20 minutes). Check it out!
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: marz13]
#7843720 - 01/07/08 02:07 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
marz13 said: In the hands of wicked men. Last time I checked there were more wicked than good. I'm just saying, the earth is dying and no one can heal it. Religion and governments are to blame. With the help of science of course.
This is funny.
You should learn a little bit about the history of this planet before you write it of as a dying entity.
The Earth has been through 4.6 *billion* years of cataclysmic upheaval and unimaginable destruction. This is undoubtedly one of the calmer periods in the history of this planet.
But I'm a scientist, so feel free to discount what I say.
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
Syle
Kenai Sigh


Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 6,678
Loc: WA
Last seen: 10 months, 26 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Madtowntripper]
#7843727 - 01/07/08 02:10 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Madtowntripper said:
Quote:
marz13 said: In the hands of wicked men. Last time I checked there were more wicked than good. I'm just saying, the earth is dying and no one can heal it. Religion and governments are to blame. With the help of science of course.
This is funny.
You should learn a little bit about the history of this planet before you write it of as a dying entity.
The Earth has been through 4.6 *billion* years of cataclysmic upheaval and unimaginable destruction. This is undoubtedly one of the calmer periods in the history of this planet.
But I'm a scientist, so feel free to discount what I say.
-------------------- https://kenaisigh.bandcamp.com/ <- Just completed the 2021 RPM challenge for February - An EP in one month (5 songs or 20 minutes). Check it out!
|
marz13
Unseen



Registered: 10/30/07
Posts: 155
Loc: Arizona
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Madtowntripper]
#7843739 - 01/07/08 02:14 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
The calm before the storm.
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: marz13]
#7843742 - 01/07/08 02:15 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
You are hellaciously ignorant.
There is literally nothing we could do to make conditions approach what they have been in the past.
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
marz13
Unseen



Registered: 10/30/07
Posts: 155
Loc: Arizona
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Madtowntripper]
#7843766 - 01/07/08 02:25 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm
Your a scientist. You know that when they are gone we are all gone.
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: marz13]
#7843811 - 01/07/08 02:34 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Here's your article. Outside of the typically British sensationalist headline, show me where a scientist says that sea life will be extinct in 50 years?
Did you read that article, or did you just read the headline?
Because I have my doubts...
Quote:
'Only 50 years left' for sea fish
Natural protection
Enlarge Image There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major scientific study.
Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the rate of decline is accelerating.
Writing in the journal Science, the international team of researchers says fishery decline is closely tied to a broader loss of marine biodiversity.
But a greater use of protected areas could safeguard existing stocks.
"The way we use the oceans is that we hope and assume there will always be another species to exploit after we've completely gone through the last one," said research leader Boris Worm, from Dalhousie University in Canada.
"What we're highlighting is there is a finite number of stocks; we have gone through one-third, and we are going to get through the rest," he told the BBC News website.
Steve Palumbi, from Stanford University in California, one of the other scientists on the project, added: "Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood."
Spanning the seas
This is a vast piece of research, incorporating scientists from many institutions in Europe and the Americas, and drawing on four distinctly different kinds of data.
Catch records from the open sea give a picture of declining fish stocks.
In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse, defined as a decline to less than 10% of their original yield.
Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are not bringing the world's fleets bigger returns - in fact, the global catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003.
Historical records from coastal zones in North America, Europe and Australia also show declining yields, in step with declining species diversity; these are yields not just of fish, but of other kinds of seafood too.
Zones of biodiversity loss also tended to see more beach closures, more blooms of potentially harmful algae, and more coastal flooding.
We should protect biodiversity, and it does pay off through fisheries yield
Experiments performed in small, relatively contained ecosystems show that reductions in diversity tend to bring reductions in the size and robustness of local fish stocks. This implies that loss of biodiversity is driving the declines in fish stocks seen in the large-scale studies.
The final part of the jigsaw is data from areas where fishing has been banned or heavily restricted.
These show that protection brings back biodiversity within the zone, and restores populations of fish just outside.
Click here to see where the evidence came from
"The image I use to explain why biodiversity is so important is that marine life is a bit like a house of cards," said Dr Worm.
"All parts of it are integral to the structure; if you remove parts, particularly at the bottom, it's detrimental to everything on top and threatens the whole structure.
"And we're learning that in the oceans, species are very strongly linked to each other - probably more so than on land."
Protected interest
What the study does not do is attribute damage to individual activities such as over-fishing, pollution or habitat loss; instead it paints a picture of the cumulative harm done across the board.
Even so, a key implication of the research is that more of the oceans should be protected.
Nets on tuna boat. Image: Wolcott Henry 2005/Marine Photobank Modern fishing methods such as purse seine nets are very efficient
But the extent of protection is not the only issue, according to Carl Gustaf Lundin, head of the global marine programme at IUCN, the World Conservation Union.
"The benefits of marine-protected areas are quite clear in a few cases; there's no doubt that protecting areas leads to a lot more fish and larger fish, and less vulnerability," he said.
"But you also have to have good management of marine parks and good management of fisheries. Clearly, fishing should not wreck the ecosystem, bottom trawling being a good example of something which does wreck the ecosystem."
But, he said, the concept of protecting fish stocks by protecting biodiversity does make sense.
"This is a good compelling case; we should protect biodiversity, and it does pay off even in simple monetary terms through fisheries yield."
Protecting stocks demands the political will to act on scientific advice - something which Boris Worm finds lacking in Europe, where politicians have ignored recommendations to halt the iconic North Sea cod fishery year after year.
Without a ban, scientists fear the North Sea stocks could follow the Grand Banks cod of eastern Canada into apparently terminal decline.
"I'm just amazed, it's very irrational," he said.
"You have scientific consensus and nothing moves. It's a sad example; and what happened in Canada should be such a warning, because now it's collapsed it's not coming back."
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
marz13
Unseen



Registered: 10/30/07
Posts: 155
Loc: Arizona
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Madtowntripper]
#7843904 - 01/07/08 02:54 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
"Safeguard"? "Unless"? Sounds like a plan to me! "Protecting stocks demands the political will to act on scientific advice - something which Boris Worm finds lacking in Europe, where politicians have ignored recommendations to halt the iconic North Sea cod fishery year after year."
|
marz13
Unseen



Registered: 10/30/07
Posts: 155
Loc: Arizona
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: marz13]
#7843916 - 01/07/08 02:56 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
"Lacking" and "Ignored" sound positive! Right?
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs




Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: marz13]
#7844737 - 01/07/08 05:41 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
IF you're so worried, do something about it. Get your ass off an internet web board and go make a difference.
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: marz13]
#7844892 - 01/07/08 06:17 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I'm glad we're whipping the terrorists' asses. When McCain's elected we'll destroy even more of them.
|
downforpot
Stranger

Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7845016 - 01/07/08 06:41 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said:
I believe in evolution just like you guys, but I still think it's just a theory. And to belief in a theory, like you said, requires faith.
What does faith have to do with understanding and accepting a theory?
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/4th25 "And I don't care if he was handcuffed Then shot in his head All I know is dead bodies Can't fuck with me again"
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: downforpot]
#7845033 - 01/07/08 06:44 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Evolution is an observable fact. Natural selection is a theory.
--------------------
|
downforpot
Stranger

Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: zappaisgod]
#7845054 - 01/07/08 06:49 PM (16 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Science as a whole is made up of theories. The problem is that there are so many morons in our country that don't even know the definition of a scientific theory. They all think it means a "guess". Fucking morons.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/4th25 "And I don't care if he was handcuffed Then shot in his head All I know is dead bodies Can't fuck with me again"
Edited by downforpot (01/07/08 06:51 PM)
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: zappaisgod]
#7847000 - 01/08/08 07:27 AM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Evolution is an observable fact. Natural selection is a theory.
I thought it was the visa versa
|
YidakiMan
Stranger


Registered: 09/28/02
Posts: 2,023
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Arp]
#7847146 - 01/08/08 09:09 AM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
If I'm not mistaken Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive. It's the people that believe every single word in the Bible that scare the shit out of me. I mean think about it, there are many people out there, in this country that LITERALLY think of themselves as Eve's great great great ---granddaughter. If that weren't nuts enough. They think that one of two things is possible: Dinosaurs in the Bible were referenced by metaphor or Dinosaurs are a lie created by Satan.
There was a show on PBS and a court case (Iowa School Board, IIRC), it basically proved two parties got together and changed "Creationism", an inherently religious issue to Intelligent Design after a Supreme Court case stated just that. One of the parties was a publisher, Penguin books, who saved every draft of a new science book. The draft before the Court case cited Creationism. The draft after cited "CrIntelligent Design. It was clear they tried to highlight "Creationism" and replace it with Intelligent Design. And since these drafts were admitted into Court, the Court knew Intelligent Design was a sham.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: YidakiMan]
#7847191 - 01/08/08 09:35 AM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Scientific knowledge is a set of facts extrapolated into testable theories, which are either confirmed or refuted and modified or abandoned. For instance, it was observed that things fall down. THAT is a fact. The theory of gravity followed from that observed fact and was tested many times over and found to be an extremely reliable predictor of future events. The theory that the earth sucks didn't fare so well.
It is true that intelligent design and evolution are not de facto mutually exclusive. What is also true is that intelligent design has zero predictive value and thus no value at all. Except to reinforce some delusion that there is a supernatural something doing something for some reason. I, myself, refuse to indulge in that delusion. That way lies madness.
--------------------
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: zappaisgod]
#7847202 - 01/08/08 09:41 AM (16 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: That way lies madness.
A little madness is ok
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7853740 - 01/09/08 01:44 PM (16 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: That way lies madness.
A little madness is ok
Sure, but keep it to yourself please.
Madness does not work as public policy.
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: Madtowntripper]
#7853796 - 01/09/08 01:53 PM (16 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Did you even watch the video? Obviously not if you didn't realize my post was a joke.
it was a music video by a group called MADNESS
WAKA WAKA WAKA!
Get it?
(taps his mic)
Is this thing on?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7853817 - 01/09/08 01:55 PM (16 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Jeez, even I knew that before I played the thing. I also knew enough to not start it, for fucks sake. Madness is not survivable in any dosage.
--------------------
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: zappaisgod]
#7853824 - 01/09/08 01:56 PM (16 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Oh BOOO! That video is the bomb diggity
Next thing you know, zappa will be talking shit about the song "Come on Eileen"
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7853840 - 01/09/08 01:59 PM (16 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Dexy's Midnite Runners. Take that. And this: We Can Dance; Men Without Hats. I LOVE that song.
--------------------
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: BrAiN]
#7853844 - 01/09/08 01:59 PM (16 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Did you even watch the video? Obviously not if you didn't realize my post was a joke.
I wasn't altogether serious myself, kiddo.
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
BrAiN
Art Fag


Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists [Re: zappaisgod]
#7853845 - 01/09/08 01:59 PM (16 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Ahhhh.... but can you dig... the SPECIALS????
|
|