Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Madonna and Bon Jovi are no match for Hawaiian flies when it comes to karaoke hits at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. In a popular exhibit activity, visitors attempt to mimic the unique courtship calls of different species of Hawaiian Drosophila, a group of 800 different flies that may have evolved from a single species.
Fly karaoke is part of "Explore Evolution," a permanent exhibit currently at Nebraska and five other museums in the Midwest and Southwest...that explores evolutionary concepts in new ways. Such an activity is a far cry from the traditional way science museums have presented evolution, which usually included charts called phylogenies depicting ancestral relationships or a static set of fossils arranged chronologically. "Explore Evolution'' has those, too—and then some, because museum curators came to realize that they needed better ways to counter growing attacks on their integrity.
...
Under pressure from these kinds of groups, the Kansas State Board of Education in 2005 approved a curriculum that allowed the public schools to include completely unfounded challenges to the theory of evolution.
In an effort to make their case to the public, creationists raised $26 million in private donations to build the 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., which opened in late May. The institution presents the biblical history of the universe. Visitors learn that biblically, dinosaurs are best explained as creatures that roamed Earth with humans. In its first month of existence, the museum drew over 49,000 visitors, according to its Web site.
"Explore Evolution," funded by a $2.8 million grant from the National Science Foundation, is one of many recent efforts by science museums to counter such resistance to evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
[[You’ve simply made a vague claim.
What, exactly is your claim?]]
I didn’t make a claim- Sir Ed made the claim that Baraminolgy isn’t predictive- Baraminology certainly is predictive.
Ed- JS- we’re getting nowhere here- arguing moot points that are easily provable, and the discussion has devolved into a symantic merry-go-round which has no merrit in light of hte issues that were being discussed- The original statement By Sir ed was that Baraminology isn’t science becaUSE’ it isn’t predictive’ which is false and easily refutted- Now, the others in this thread are discussing an interesting topic- let’s give them the floor
[[Thwe Xnephonoibc Xloyhpnoe mnirstel dbeukned thge tehory of the Pyholegtenic evloutoin of palecnatl ebmoirinc crdaaic vlavle prots wihch csuae cnortavnenig froecs to dsirput the stsyiloc persusre cdaenceis to fnutcoin poerply.
Bah I can’t think right now- but that looks a bit otugher to decifer]]
Especially in light of hte fact that the last part made no sense lol- should have read: [[Thwe Xnephonoibc Xloyhpnoe mnirstel dbeukned thge tehory of the Pyholegtenic evloutoin of palecnatl ebmoirinc crdaaic vlavle prots wihch csuae cnortavnenig froecs to dsirput the stsyiloc persusre cdaenceis wihch in trun csuaed the hraet to fnutcoin impoerply, whhic in trun csuead the sepoialtoin of the haret by aloliwng bcatreial dmoinaetd mcaorhpaegs to rvaage the haert.]]
A little better I guess- but I think seeing words that aren’t as familiar throws the mind for a loop when spelled wrong as you suggested.
You posted no such link to me.
Then you will have no trouble posting some links supporting your position.
It seems odd to me that the evolution critics with the most to gain from such a revelation -- Behe, Dembski, and Yockey -- have not mentioned it.
How's this link?
This stuff is good too.
"If a large volume of empty space surrounds the matter of the cosmos, so that the cosmos can have a centre of mass, then the matter is in a deep gravitational potential ‘well’. If space is expanding and spreading the matter outward, then the depth of the well is decreasing. According to general relativity, especially a new solution of Einstein’s equations derived in the Appendix (which also deals with Birkhoff’s theorem), the decreasing depth continuously shortens ‘radar’ distances within the well, causing the observed apparent acceleration.
The magnitude of the anomalous acceleration implies the bottom of the potential well has not yet risen very far above the critical depth for gravitational time dilation. Thus the Pioneer effect supports the essentials of several creationist cosmologies: a centre of mass, expansion of space and recent time dilation.
You got it! Your two cents are now worth ... wait for it ... two cents with this tough crowd.
Wow, didn't take long for this ridiculous 'competition' nonsense to raise its head.
Very interesting notion. Thanks for posting the link.
All that was resolved by deduction over two centuries ago. Positivism was used to try to overthrow that with the aid of nominalism, but positivism itself was overthrown leaving nominalism. What remains is immume to skepticism.
All that was resolved by deduction over two centuries ago. Positivism was used to try to overthrow that with the aid of nominalism, but positivism itself was overthrown leaving nominalism. What remains is immume to skepticism.
Also, I don’t think that italicized stuff makes any sense. Our observable universe shows about 13B years of visible matter then a relatively short gap of darkness then a plasma shrouding the BB but no large volumne of surrounding empty space. If there’s actually a “large volume of empty space surrounds the matter of the cosmos,” we can’t see it and therefore it can have no effect here.
I find it interesting that Behe, who should be motivated to find discontinuities in taxa, confirms common descent. Same with Yockey.
[[Naturally the meaning of major unrelatedness, or discontinuity, among various taxa will need to be made precise.]]
Lol- yes, in order for Baraminology to have any ligitimacy in the eyes of dogmatic opposers, it needs to be absolutely precise, yet, incredidibly, the hpyologentic system that the dogmatic accept is based on major assumptions with no evidence to precisely define or even show relatedness of species KINDS. you see, Ed’s OPINION is the only OPINION that matters in science, and his OPINION is apparently that the evidence showing discontinuity in Baraminology is wrong wqhen infact he will present absolutely NO evidence to show that it is wrong- just an a priori opinion. The Baraminology system infact points out major discontinuities and gives biological evidences that support the discontinuity, and while there is absolutely NO way to test for common anscestry as held by the evo classification system- why, that’s not a problem for Ed and Evos, but when evidences are given showing major discontinuity, they balk and demand absolute precision,
Ed- you will find many examples of discontinuity in Baraminology- The evidence to back up discontinutity is available to you by searching. As I mentioned, you may dissagree with the conclusions, but there is absolutey NO scientifically valid reason for discounting it- None! You can attempt to disparrage it al lyou like- but you will have no science to show that it isn’t a valid classification and in many cases is infact more precise than the assumption and bias results of Phylogeny
If Guth is right, the actual radius of the universe resulting from the BB is about 109 larger than the Hubble radius. We can't see any farther due to the speed of light. The surrounding space wouldn't be any different than what we can see.
Positivism I recognized immediately from my own observations and experience, though not by that name.
By comparison the explinations of Nominalism seemed to be vague and varied. Can you specify which flavor?
They don’;t ‘confirm it’ they have an opinion- that’s it- the opinion is not backed up by science fact- it is supported in the minds of those who beleive it, by nothign but assumptions. Let’s be clear on that. I don’t find it odd that people like Behe have opinions-
Then to balance Nominalism there is Deconstructionism and now Post-deconstructionism. All these systems are in trouble. Right now the entire field is breaking into little pockets of proposed systems with no particular direction. The result of all this is the chaos in the world today, an inevitable outcome. I have my doubts about Aristotelian deduction since there is no particular necessity for the excluded middle, but given the excluded middle Kantism still rules.
Putting aside the fact that I asked you first, if I make the effort to post a prediction from common descent, will you at last drop the bullshit and either link to or make the argument you claim?
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.