Skip to comments.
Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology
National Center for Science Education ^
| 18 April 2006
| Staff
Posted on 04/19/2006 3:57:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,040, 1,041-1,060, 1,061-1,080 ... 1,281-1,290 next last
To: Elsie
Why do you always put the source of these charts in such tiny print?
(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here.)
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm There, better. :)
To: PatrickHenry
Religion: consider the current state of Protestantism in the US. Ok...
Now what???
1,042
posted on
04/24/2006 8:54:32 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
A. Eyes = bigger again"Bigger again" -- 'again' on sample A, commencing the series?
Your glosses on the diagram appear to be running backward; perhaps that is why you have utterly misunderstood (and thereby misrepresented) this diagram.
I know, I know, it's a waste of time pointing this out to you. But you run the risk of confusing someone who actually reads these threads for information.
O Lord, let this Elsie-thon end!
1,044
posted on
04/24/2006 8:57:14 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Why do you always put the source of these charts in such tiny print? To make it hard for you beady-eyed Evo's to SEE them! ;^)
1,045
posted on
04/24/2006 8:57:18 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Why do you always put the source of these charts in such tiny print? Hold down your CTRL key, and spin your scrolling mouse wheel. This will change the size of the text for you.
1,046
posted on
04/24/2006 8:58:29 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: PatrickHenry
"O Lord, let this Elsie-thon end!"
The Lord's got nothing to do with it.
To: ToryHeartland
But you run the risk of confusing someone who actually reads these threads for information.
Ha ha HAHAHA!!!!!!
1,048
posted on
04/24/2006 8:59:49 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: PatrickHenry
O Lord, let this Elsie-thon end! You mean, "lead us not into spamation, but deliver us from Elsie..."
To: CarolinaGuitarman
The Lord's got nothing to do with it.
Yes or NO?
1,050
posted on
04/24/2006 9:00:31 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: ToryHeartland
A. Eyes = bigger again
WHAT???
You mean we are supposed to start at the BOTTOM and go UP?????
1,051
posted on
04/24/2006 9:02:08 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Elsie's here!
Let's pile on and tickle 'im 'til he pees his pants!
1,053
posted on
04/24/2006 9:03:57 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
Thanks for posting that wonderful, utterly crushing evidence again. Not only is it a beautiful series, but you helpfully highlight for us how easy microevolution is too with your commentary on the less significant changes.
1,054
posted on
04/24/2006 9:08:31 AM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(Miraculous explanations are just spasmodic omphalism)
To: Elsie
You mean we are supposed to start at the BOTTOM and go UP?????Only if you are interested in looking at the data--which you clearly are not.
As you aren't interested in the evidence--nor interested, apparently, in anything beyond spamming-- you are perfectly free to use this chart for wrapping fish, as a decorative placemat, or as a Halloween decoration.
I might suggest that, printed off, the chart's optimal use in your case would be as a permanent dustcover for your keyboard.
To: Elsie
"Elsie's here!
Let's pile on and tickle 'im 'til he pees his pants!"
Your mind really does wanders in odd ways...
To: RunningWolf
Rather than seeking a definition, which is readily available, I have asked them to state the "Theory of Evolution". They repeatedly claim that it is a scientific theory. If that is so, then they need to state the Theory of Evolution as a scientific theory before debate can continue.
Unfortunately, although they claim to be scientists, they appear unable to grasp the difference between a scientific theory and a simple definition.
For instance:
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity consists of two postulates:
1. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
2. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial, non-accelerated frame of reference. The laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.
The
definition of "relativity theory" is:
"the theory that space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts".
As you can see from the example, the definition of a scientific theory is not the same as a clear concise scientific statement of a scientific theory.
1,057
posted on
04/24/2006 9:36:55 AM PDT
by
TaxRelief
(Wal-Mart: Keeping my family on-budget since 1993.)
To: TaxRelief
"Rather than seeking a definition, which is readily available, I have asked them to state the "Theory of Evolution"."
And we asked you first to back up your silly claim that evolution is too *broad* to be a scientific theory.
You have studiously avoided doing so. Instead, you throw insults at anybody who has the audacity to actually request you back up your claims.
Pretty pathetic.
To: TaxRelief; Old Landmarks
Well this guy attacking you is definitely no scientist.
He infers he might be a historian, but I doubt even that, certainly not a professional or published historian.
On this post, (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617533/posts?page=908#908) Old Landmarks noticed I have an uncanny grasp of the obvious LOL.
Well here is another uncanny grasp of the obvious. These people (at least this one) are not about debate. Talk past him and to the lurkers. That is who counts, not the cultist nutball with the evo-crackerjack credentials. His taunts carry about as much weight too.
Wolf
1,059
posted on
04/24/2006 10:07:24 AM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: js1138
My reference, with specific citation, makes it ckear that the word science was used in its modern sense in 1725. That's approximate date I had in mind, js1138. 1725 is considered to be in "modern times."
1,060
posted on
04/24/2006 10:13:33 AM PDT
by
betty boop
(The world of Appearance is Reality’s cloak -- "Nature loves to hide.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,040, 1,041-1,060, 1,061-1,080 ... 1,281-1,290 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson