Antievolutionists asked to review draft standards in Texas

The National Center for Science Education ^ | October 16, 2008

[Soliton]

Three antievolutionists have been appointed to a six-member committee to review the draft set of Texas state science standards, and defenders of the integrity of science education in the Lone Star state are livid. "The committee was chosen by 12 of the 15 members of the board of education, with each panel member receiving the support of two board members," as the Dallas Morning News (October 16, 2008) explains. Six members of the board "aligned with social conservative groups" chose Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Ralph Seelke, a biology professor at the University of Wiconsin, Superior, and Charles Garner, a chemistry professor at Baylor University.

Meyer, Seelke, and Garner are all signatories of the Discovery Institute-sponsored "Dissent from Darwinism" statement. Meyer and Seelke are also coauthors of Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House, 2008), which, like Of Pandas and People, is a supplementary textbook that is intended to instill scientifically unwarranted doubts about evolution. A recent review by biologist John Timmer summarized, "But the book doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book." Garner reportedly told the Houston Press (December 14, 2000) that he "criticizes evolutionary theory in class."

Meyer and Seelke also testified in the 2005 "kangaroo court" hearings held by three antievolutionist members of the Kansas state board of education, in which a parade of antievolutionist witnesses expressed their support for the so-called minority report version of the state science standards (written with the aid of a local "intelligent design" organization), complained of repression by a dogmatic evolutionary establishment, and claimed to have detected atheism lurking "between the lines" of the standards..

[Alamo-Girl]

What exactly do you mean by temporal? Vectors? Tensors?

I mean temporal versus spatial, i.e. time versus space.

A scalar is a tensor of rank 0. A vector is a tensor of rank 1. Higher tensor ranks are applicable to transformations of equations between coordinate systems.

[Fichori]

Congratulations on post 1,000!

[hosepipe]

[ EM fields are real, but they aren't made of anything and waves from EM fields are light and matter. So essentially everything is waves of nothing. ]

What is matter?..

[LeGrande]

I mean temporal versus spatial, i.e. time versus space.

So when you say two temporal states, are you implying something besides past, present and future?

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thanks!

[fabian]

livid...hellooo, who pays these people’s salary! Us! And we believe and see God in science just as the great scientists of past like Issacc Newton did. So let’s get God back in the science class where He has always been until the dimwitted secular scientists took over the public school science teachings.

[Alamo-Girl]

So when you say two temporal states, are you implying something besides past, present and future?

Where did I say "two temporal states?"

We've been discussing geometric physics and concerning time, the consequence of two dimensions of time.

Among other things, such theories offer a better explanation of Bell's inequalities at distance.

Quantum entanglement is where the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to one another regardless of the extent to which they may be spatially separated. Which is to say the measurement of one of two entangled photons will determine the other even if it is 10 kilometers away, on the moon, in another galaxy, etc.

In four dimensions (one temporal, three spatial) it violates the speed of light limitation. And as Penrose pointed out, it also suggests a paradox when both of the entangled photons are simultaneously measured. With two time dimensions, there is no issue.

By the way, because experiments (up to 10 kilometers) confirmed the phenomenon – there was a great deal of hope for superluminal communications. However, the no-cloning theorem forbids creation of identical copies of an unknown quantum state therefore no error correction, computing or communications at superluminal speeds. Even so, the non-cloning theorem and quantum entanglement offers a great solution for quantum cryptography, i.e. no one could “eavesdrop” on the quantum superluminal cryptographic key.

The bottom line is that one must lay aside presuppositions of a timeline, arrow of time, speed of light limitation, light cones etc. when dealing with two or more time dimension theories.

From a theological point of view, the theories also suggest that God - being beyond space and time - sees past present and future all at once and moreover, that He has creative power over physical causation "in" space/time of however many dimensions. For instance, a change in the future instantly effects the past and present because they are concurrent on the time plane (or cube, etc.) And such a change would obviously be completely undetectable to observers "in" space and time.

No doubt such speculations involving two or more time dimensions have been fodder for many science fiction scripts as well as mysticism involving precognition, retro-cognition, remote viewing, etc.

[LeGrande]

Where did I say "two temporal states?"

We've been discussing geometric physics and concerning time, the consequence of two dimensions of time.

Hmm, you just said it again, two dimensions of time. And from here,

Sat Oct 25 00:07:29 2008 · 963 of 1,007 Alamo-Girl to LeGrande; Fichori Oh, and I should mention that the speed limit of the universe is based on four dimensional relativity. Add one more dimension of time and you must think in terms of a plane instead of a line - past, present and future are concurrent on the plane.

The Four dimensions of relativity includes time (x,y,z,t), and you are adding a second "time" to the equations? I am not questioning you, I am simply trying to understand what you are saying.

In four dimensions (one temporal, three spatial) it violates the speed of light limitation. And as Penrose pointed out, it also suggests a paradox when both of the entangled photons are simultaneously measured. With two time dimensions, there is no issue.

So you are again calling for two temporal states? Bells Theorem implicitly shows how no information is transmitted faster than the speed of light so their is no contradiction in our standard relativistic universe.

The bottom line is that one must lay aside presuppositions of a timeline, arrow of time, speed of light limitation, light cones etc. when dealing with two or more time dimension theories.

Yes, but it is only necessary to deal with multiple dimensions if you can show that information can be sent faster than the speed of light.

From a theological point of view, the theories also suggest that God - being beyond space and time - sees past present and future all at once and moreover, that He has creative power over physical causation "in" space/time of however many dimensions. For instance, a change in the future instantly effects the past and present because they are concurrent on the time plane (or cube, etc.) And such a change would obviously be completely undetectable to observers "in" space and time.

How would you demonstrate an effect from outside space and time, inside space and time?

[mrjesse]

EM fields are real, but they aren't made of anything and waves from EM fields are light and matter. So essentially everything is waves of nothing.

Think about that for a while : )

Hosepipe, Alamo-Girl:

When discussing physics and science with LeGrande, keep in mind that you're likely never to get an honest result. He believes that the sun appears 2.1 degrees behind its actual position at any instant in time for an observer on the earth because the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes light to reach earth from the sun. Now if the sun were orbiting the earth at the rate of once every 24 hours, then he'd be right. But it's not: the earth is just turning. By his same "math" Pluto, when 6.8 light hours away, would appear 102 degrees behind where it was, and the sun, if 12 light hours away, would appear in the east when it was really in the west. But he refuses to admit he was wrong, and he refuses to provide a single scientific report backing him up, and now lately he won't even talk to me -- because, I'm sure, he knows he's made a false claim but doesn't want to admit it.

And my whole discussion with him which lead to his absurd claim -- it all started around the time he was telling me that everything was waves of nothing!

He constantly tried to change the subject and avoid talking about the 2.1 degrees, but I told him "If we cannot understand basic geometry, there's no point in discussing more complicated things like fields." (And by the way, he told me a couple times that I was a liar but never once pointed out any lie that I had told. And he lied to me on a couple occasions as well. He said that "An error is much the same thing as a lie." He also said that almost every post I made contains a lie or an error, and many other things I can't remember. I can provide links to all of the ones I mentioned and more if that would help.)

Anyway, rest assured that LeGrande does make claims that he can't back up, does tell lies, and will undyingly hold onto and argue for an idea even in the face of undeniable evidence against and zero evidence for.

I'd still like to know why he won't tell me how lagged the sun would be if it was 12 light hours away, (as always, for an observer on the earth at any instant in time) and how far lagged (angularly displaced) pluto would be when it is 6.8 light hours away (which it does do.) Maybe he'll tell you.

-Jesse

[betty boop]

Sure, please show that his test samples came from the shroud. The Vatican says that they can't confirm it and Rogers admitted he couldn't be sure.

If the sample did not come from the Shroud, then why were they testing it? And having tested this putatively bogus sample, in what way does that say anything about the actual Shroud?

My information is that the tested sample was from a graft added by skillful weavers in the 14th century, a virtually undetectable repair to the Shroud owing to some fire damage.

I guess science will have to try again.

But I'd love for science to explain to me the nature of the image on the Shroud. It has been tested and found NOT to be pigment, or dyes, or something that has been applied TO the cloth. It appears to be more akin to a photographic process of some sort. But to this day, no scientists's been able to explain what this process was and how it got on the cloth.

But we Christians know, for we accept the authenticity of the Shroud — that it is indeed the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, Who rose from the dead on the third day — probably, it seems to me, involving a great flash of Light....

[betty boop]

Interesting that the evoatheists accept the existence of gravity as fact when the only way it can be determined is through it's effect on objects around it, but say that the same criteria is not good enough to demonstrate God's existence.

Yes, that is interesting, metmom! They refuse to acknowledge the logical inconsistency involved. I gather their dogma blinds them to it. Sigh....

Thank you so very much for your astute observations, metmom!

[metmom]

So essentially everything is waves of nothing.

Speak for yourself.

Think about that that for a while.

[metmom]

*sigh*

Spell check ain’t grammar check.

Only one “that”.

[hosepipe]

[ And my whole discussion with him which lead to his absurd claim -- it all started around the time he was telling me that everything was waves of nothing! ]

All I wanted to know from him was what is nothing made of?..
What occupys the space where nothing resides..

[hosepipe]

[ Speak for yourself. (Think about that that for a while.) ]

LoL....

[metmom]

Mj: [ And my whole discussion with him which lead to his absurd claim -- it all started around the time he was telling me that everything was waves of nothing! ]

hp: All I wanted to know from him was what is nothing made of?.. What occupys the space where nothing resides..

Don't some people do a great job of shooting themselves in the foot?

LG, you essentially stated what all of us have already recognized, that all of your pronouncements are empty verbiage. You have, in effect, said nothing.

[hosepipe]

Evidently; The boy(prolly) is a legend in his own mind..

[LeGrande]

LG, you essentially stated what all of us have already recognized, that all of your pronouncements are empty verbiage. You have, in effect, said nothing.

That is your refutation to E=MC²? LOL

[LeGrande]

So essentially everything is waves of nothing.

Speak for yourself.

Then can you tell me what an EM Field is composed of?

[BnBlFlag]

Why are you so worried about what is happening in Texas? Mind your own Damn business!