Oh, I can't WAIT to hear how you define the difference.
Posted on 08/23/2006 11:09:23 PM PDT by balch3
Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students.
The omission is inadvertent, said Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, which administers the grants. “There is no explanation for it being left off the list,” Ms. McLane said. “It has always been an eligible major.”
Another spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored to the list, but as of last night it was still missing.
If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot get grants unless they declare another major, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Mr. Nassirian said students seeking the grants went first to their college registrar, who determined whether they were full-time students majoring in an eligible field.
“If a field is missing, that student would not even get into the process,” he said.
That the omission occurred at all is worrying scientists concerned about threats to the teaching of evolution.
One of them, Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University, said he learned about it from someone at the Department of Education, who got in touch with him after his essay on the necessity of teaching evolution appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 15. Dr. Krauss would not name his source, who he said was concerned about being publicly identified as having drawn attention to the matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
There have always been frauds in this area -- Piltdown Man, etc. But those frauds were exposed BY SCIENCE ITSELF.
Individual frauds do not mean much. They mean that the scientific method works and keeps (or miimizes) bad data.
Please tell us which of Coyoteman's (CP) skulls are false and provide evidence thereof.
I'll need to reseach and see if I can find his name.
Irrelevant. Does the Cold Fusion scam repudiate all of Physics?
Are you familiar with the concept of outlying or sporadic data? There are millions of fossils and other data which create the Evolution picture. For your assertion to have valiity you would have to have proof that 50%+ are fake.
History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1418104,00.html
Oh, I can't WAIT to hear how you define the difference.
"Please tell us which of Coyoteman's (CP) skulls are false and provide evidence thereof."
nonsense, I'm not the one presenting them as proof.
"Individual frauds do not mean much. They mean that the scientific method works and keeps (or miimizes) bad data."
Then why do you bring up cold fusion?
"Individual frauds do not mean much. They mean that the scientific method works and keeps (or miimizes) bad data."
Then it should be easy for you to prove. But you can't without making huge assumptions which are based on other huge assumptions.
nonsense, I'm not the one presenting them as proof.
But you are pretty quick to dismiss them all as inconsequential. What, exactly, is your qualification for this opinion?
Have you studied in one of the relevant fields?
Or, have you just assumed a priori that there is no evidence sufficient to convince you of the accuracy of the theory of evolution? If so, what is your basis for this assumption?
Give me a break...those on the religious forum cannot even agree on the meanings of simple words either...they are constantly disagreeing about what the word, 'brother', 'sister', 'til', mean...and those are major disagreements...these three words are bound up in the disagreement that Catholics have with most non-Catholic Christians about the question as to whether Mary, the mother of Jesus, actually had sex with her husband, during their marriage, after the birth of Jesus...a major point of disagreement...all over the meanings of simple words...
Christians as a major group, have major contentions with each other, all over the meaning of simple words, and those differences over the meanings of simple words, lead to huge differences in the dogma of all the different Christian religions...
I gave only one example...there are many, many more...
This is absolutely a disagreement over interpretation, not merely a disagreement over individual understandings...and these major differences in interpretation, have lead to multiple and various Christian denominations, which are always at odds with each other, which is daily evidenced by the constant disagreement here at FR in the religion forum...the various subjects which are vehemently disagreed about are things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, transubstantion at communion, founding of the Christian church on Peter or Jesus, mandatory celibacy of leaders of the Church, forbidding of blood transfusions, claims that the Bible forbids medical help of any kind, can women, with authority teach the Bible to men, disagreements on the Rapture, on and on and on and on and on it goes...
Dont tell me that this is merely a disagreement over individual understandings because it surely is not, seen by the evidence....its a major difference in interpretation as to what the Bible is or is not saying...and these major differences in interpretations, has led the Christian church, to be splintered into many different Christian religions, all with their own particular dogma..its not a minor thing, as you have seemed to hint at...its a very real and major difference between Christian religions, based on differing interpretations...
The subject of the creation vs evolution is only one subject where various Christians disagree...I am sure, that even when two Christians from widely differing religions come to an agreement with each other, that surely the literal 24hr 6 day creation is true, when they explore things further, they will find that they disagree just as vehemently with each other about other topics from the Bible...the evolution vs creation disagreement is only one area where Christians disagree...
In any endeavor there will always be those individuals who will perpetrate frauds, because of ego, or money, or whatever reason...frauds with science are no exception...when they do happen, they should be exposed...but because a fraud occurs, does that actually mean to you that the whole of a particular scientific endeavor should be dismissed?
I consider creeps like Jim Jones, and Jimmy Swaggart, and my own pesonal favorite, Benny Hinn, and all the priests who molested the altar boys to be frauds, frauds to the Christian religion..does that mean that Christianity should be dismissed because of the frauds who operate within that framework?
Frauds, in whatever venue, should be exposed, for they do not represent the true nature of that venue...and once exposed, they should no longer be trusted...
Tagline switch placemarker.
Yes, I would say that is quite the switch...
Off the Farmers Market placemarker..
"Frauds, in whatever venue, should be exposed, for they do not represent the true nature of that venue...and once exposed, they should no longer be trusted."
Certainly, I'm just tired of "scientists" saying that we must believe everything they say because they are "scientists".
We have these people in the educational system who consider themselves elite because they are professors or because they have been career college students.
The proof has been presented. The onus is on you to disprove them now. Or do you know as little about forensics as you do about science?
"Individual frauds do not mean much. They mean that the scientific method works and keeps (or miimizes) bad data."
Then why do you bring up cold fusion?
The Cold Fusion experiment result was found to be unreplicatabale. As a result, it was rejected by the Science community. Physics as a science was not. By your method, a single fraud is sufficient reason to reject an entire body of science.
"Individual frauds do not mean much. They mean that the scientific method works and keeps (or miimizes) bad data."
Then it should be easy for you to prove. But you can't without making huge assumptions which are based on other huge assumptions.
Again please show which of the skulls presented in the post to you by Coyoteman have assumptions built in. Your layperson's say-so doesn't cut much muster.
I once again suggest, as a friendly gesture, that you stop making a fool of yourself by showing how little you understand science or the scientific method.
It is painful to watch.
Science has systems in place to evaluate and expose frauds.
Moreso than any other field of study.
Feel free to show me others that have more (and don't waste your time with SOX -- I could run rings around a SOX audit in my sleep).
I am sure Creationism has double blind studies and peer review in its aresenal of ensuring accuracy, right?
"Science has systems in place to evaluate and expose frauds."
Doesn't seem to work all that well in some fields.
"Moreso than any other field of study."
Oh really? Thats a pretty darn bold statement.
"I am sure Creationism has double blind studies and peer review in its aresenal of ensuring accuracy, right?"
I dunno, the number of scholars involved with revising the bible to make the language more modern was in the hundreds.
And that was just one round.
If science could take place apart from philosophical underpinnings you might have a point.
Name one.
Oh really? Thats a pretty darn bold statement.
Name one.
I dunno, the number of scholars involved with revising the bible to make the language more modern was in the hundreds.
And how many checked the accuracy? Anyone go to Jesus' tomb and double blind verify the Resurrection?
Purpetuating myth is not double-blind studies (and for reference, I am a Christian and believe that myth. But I recognize pure faith for what it is and isn't).
And that was just one round.
And you lost. Big time.
It does -- but thanks for your always amusing sophomoric musing.
I enjoyed your post. I learned a bit from it.
I also enjoyed the following post that had an interesting link which I guess was a rebuke of some sort.
It seemed to me that the first post was actually typed because of a few typos in there. It appears to not be copy/pasted.
That would be a lot of work in my opinion, especially if I were the one typing it.
"Name one."
hmmm well cloning, climate, aids research, global warming, population, lets see I'm sure theres more.
"And how many checked the accuracy? Anyone go to Jesus' tomb and double blind verify the Resurrection?"
Are you aware of the wealth of information from that time period?
Science has become a religion in this country. Don't dare to question the "findings" or you will be branded a heretic.
Those are political movements not scientific studies.
Are you aware of the wealth of information from that time period?
But none you can cite.
Science has become a religion in this country. Don't dare to question the "findings" or you will be branded a heretic.
No, just willfully ignorant or perhaps stupid.
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.