For an intellectually challenged anti-science person who doesn't believe in evolution or the big bang, this came as quite a shock:
President Bush on Saturday urged the Senate to back increased government spending on basic scientific research. The proposal is part of Bush's initiative to boost U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace through innovation. He also wants to train thousand of new science and math teachers and extend a popular tax credit businesses can receive for investing in research and development. The total price tag over 10 years would be $136 billion.
Now back to the housing bubble. Extra credit for anyone who can relate the photo
July 08, 2006
Had to post this
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
maybe they'll spend $1 and further evolution research. $1 should do it since it's settled science (except amongst the idiots)
Blinded by Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dolby
Total price tag over 10 years, $136B, so $13B/year
That is what, a week vacation in Baghdad?
*) Scientific research $13.6 B
*) Muzzling facts we don't like: $5 million/year to Rove's Young Republican droids
*) Getting out of a land war in Asia: priceless.
can you imagine how dumb you must be to not understand evolution?
or never visit a museum?
maybe bush is just faking it though to get those uneducated southern baptist dolt's votes
and they're gonna be pissed to see he wants to give $$$ to science. Blasphemy!
Wow, the world is full of so many smart people. They KNOW beyond a doubt they're right and anyone who disagrees with their view is a rube, or worse.
http://tinyurl.com/jrkda
A little humility is not a bad thing.
There has been some confusion arising over various definitions of biological evolution, particular over the distinction between:
belief in the idea that life emerged originally and/or that new forms of life have arisen purely as a result of natural forces (definition #1); and,
belief in the idea that over the ages new forms of life have indeed arisen, whatever the cause may be (definition #2)
For most scientists (95%) and virtually all biologists (99.8%), #1 and #2 are not different. It would be like trying te distinguish between (a) he survived alone on the island for 3 years and (b) he survived alone on the island for 3 years, because he was able to obtain water and food.
It's so obvious to everyone that people need water and food to survive that the distinction seems silly (at best).
But for the other side in the evolution controversy, the side which does not accept the sovereignty of science, non-physical or "supernatural" forces are a viable possibility. In fact, according to a 2001 evolution poll, 45% of Americans believe supernatural forces alone were responsible for the emergence of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/evolution
http://tinyurl.com/jrkda
"that a great deal of Evolution, not having been established, must be accepted on faith, and that a fair amount of it doesn’t make a lot of sense"
wrong.
Whatever is in there is 99.44% BS.
At the professional level, meaning research papers, facts and conceptions about evolutionary theory and results are continuously debated and subject to scrutiny.
The reality is that religious people want to instill, despite conclusive opposing evidence, a certain religiously inspired program in naive school students in one specific area and force it to be accepted with roughly equal status.
Thought experiment:
Why is nobody pushing for the "phlostigon theory of heat" as opposed to Boltzmann's statistical mechanics, or the "Aristotelian Suckage" theory of gravity as opposed to Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity?
Because they're completely wrong but the Bible wasn't bizzarely interpreted as giving God's Commandments about those area of physics.
(The Bible is about history and allegorical moral injuctions to humans, not science)
So tell us, since "facts and conceptions about evolutionary theory and results are continuously debated and subject to scrutiny", where is the experimental evidence for abiogenisis? I remember the 1960's stories about how we would create "life in a test tube" within ten years.
For that matter, where are the "results" of any repeatable experiment that supports the main precepts of this theory?
You can go ahead and admit that portions of science as it's practiced today involve considerable faith and wishful thinking -- God won't strike you down -- LOL!
Wow. There are some serious bible thumpers on this thread. Evolution is a bedrock truth, overwhelmingly supported by fossel evidence. If God created the world in 7 days, He must have a pretty good sense of humor to have created all that evidence for something that didn't happen.
Use your minds, Christians. Or did the Big Guy give you brains and expect you not to use them?
The simple fact is that most people cannot distinguish between evolution and adaptation.
As anonymous intimated, abiogenesis is rarely, if ever, addressed; merely glossed over as an inconvenience that will eventually be solved..but never is. The lighning theory is bunk which can never even come close to explaining such enormously complex happenings as Beta-pleated sheet foldings and membrane transport. Hey, I have synthesized nucleic acids, amino acids, proteins et. al in the laboratory, so where's the life? Do you really believe that if I let my creations sit for millenia upon millenia that, somehow, out will pop single celled organisms? If you really believe that, you need to study-up on the concept of entropy. That abiogenesis violates the basic tenet of biology is apparently just another inconvenience. You call that science? Where's your touchstone?
The literature is replete with errors and, most alarmingly, omissions that the layman is (obviously) unable to grasp. Unless you happen to be a geneticist--like me.
Oh, and I'm a Southern Baptist dolt, too! Now I have to go whittle and drink some 'shine. Yee-haw?
"Wow. There are some serious bible thumpers on this thread. Evolution is a bedrock truth"
Here's a good one for you:
"The scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted. In the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them."
If you didn't know, that missive was written by a Bible-thumping nutcase named Albert Einstein.
His point is there are no "bedrock truths" in science. Now can't we all just get along?
Hey wait a minute, that's maybe why you people believe in evolution. If you came from animals, why can't you marry one, right?
Yeah these evolution believers sure are dumb. All those Baptist preachers wouldn't believe in creationism if it wernt true.
It just makes such sense that people were created directly by god with his magic wand. And don't forget how logical it is for god to have created woman out of man's rib. Got to be true.
And then theres all those logical bible stories like Jonah and the Whale, Noah's Arc, virgin births, angels, devils, demons(mental illness is the result of demons in yer head-says so in the bible).
Bible-based looney-tuners! Your idiot preachers are just using you.
Oh and Einstein was not a bible thumper.
"If you didn't know, that missive was written by a Bible-thumping nutcase named Albert Einstein."
"His point is there are no "bedrock truths" in science. Now can't we all just get along?"
Sure we can all get along fine, but I still have to point out that Einstein was not saying there are no bedrock truths or anything of the sort.
Relativity, for example, is a bedrock truth. It's been confirmed, and reconfirmed, again and again. We have Einstein to thank for that one.
Evolution is another.
its funny, i've never, ever seen a conflict between god and evolution. the conflict lies in the literal translation of the bible, which only a fool would believe
yes, there is a god. yes, it created everything. yes, there was a big bang to get this party started. yes, the universe is expanding. yes, evolution exists, and was designed to perform that way.
by rejecting science, people are rejecting god's toolbox
take one look at a double helix and then tell me again how scientists are spreading evil or how god doesn't exist
Do any of you have the authority to speak on this subject? Or do you simply parrot back the little you have heard? Anyone remember the bar scene from Good Will Hunting? This strikes a very similar chord. You take what you hear and make it yours. Such ignorance!
Seriously, I'd like to know if we have anyone on this board with the knowledge to support or refute evolution. Almost everyone that has answered, to date, is clearly out of their depth.
Let's start with scientists since they would be the ones closest to the argument. Of everyone that has answered, how many of you are actual scientists? If you are not, you have no business participating in this discussion.
" how many of you are actual scientists? If you are not, you have no business participating in this discussion. "
I don't play baseball but I can argue the Cubs aren't going to win it all this year, based on my observations
libertarian,
Where does is say mental illness is caused by demons? We have a psychiatrist in the family and I want to show those passages to her. Can you cite your source?
Yes, Good point except:
You can argue baseball but your opinion won't be taken seriously. You are not an expert and your opinion will reflect your lack of knowledge. You will be considered a simple hack by those more knowledgeable than yourself.
And evolution-pro or con-is a weensy bit more complex.
"Of everyone that has answered, how many of you are actual scientists?"
Does a PhD in physics and 22 years experience in sponsored research meet your criteria? The big misconception I see here are people who think theories can be "proved". Not so. Good theories can only be falsified through the results of repeatable experiemnts.
General Relativity is a "good" theory because we can set up experiments to test its many predictions. Though widely accepted, IMO the theory of evolution is not a good theory because we have limited experimental evidence for its main premises and predictions even though they seem logically consistent with evidence like fossil records and DNA sequences. A demonstration of abiogenisis or speciation in a laboratory are examples of experimental results that could substantiate the evolution model, but to my knowledge these results have not been reported.
I think evolution is probably a useful model, but without better experimental evidence for its main premises, I don't see how any honest scientist could call it a good theory. It's obvious there is much more to learn.
I have an actual degree in Physics, with a capital P, not soem phony made up internet degree. I've never met one single accredited scientist who believes that evolution is a "bad theory". Not one. Ever. Evolution fits all experimental data and geological and anthropological evidence to date. It works.
um, it's a little coincidence that his daddy, former president, recently said "we simply can't expect to hold back the growing worldwide epidemic of cancer on less than a shoestring budget." when talking about his losing a child (what would have been W's bro or sis) to cancer. ok daddy what else should i do?
Those believing in evolution are the most naivestest. you believe all the 'evidence' and fossils? wow, get real. hello, it's all planted and the govt paying off these anthropologists to keep the farce going
[I have an actual degree in Physics, with a capital P, not soem phony made up internet degree.]
Hey, your mom is calling, she says you have to take out the trash and clean up those pizza crumbs you left in the basement.
"I've never met one single accredited scientist who believes that evolution is a "bad theory"."
Along with the physicist and myself (Genetics & Synthetic Organic Chemistry), you have now met two.
"Evolution fits all experimental data and geological and anthropological evidence to date. It works."
What experimental data? Please post some links so I can have a read.
Post a Comment