Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted May 4, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
106 Comments
When asked who doesn’t accept the scientific fact of evolution at tonight’s Republican debate Brownback was one of three who said he doesn’t. Tancredo and Huckabee were the other two. Sadly rejecting established science probably makes one more credible in the Republican field.
Hey Doug,
I too do NOT believe in evolution. For one, it is NOT a belief system that is to be taken by faith. However, I am CONVINCED that evolution is the best explanation of the way things come to be presently. And as such, this THEORY (and NOT a HYPOTHESIS like some may want to pass it) is continually refined as more scientific research uncovers further evidences.
Thus, IMHO, the Chris Matthews’ question is either loaded or based on ignorance.
As soon as I figure out how — I’m gonna get one of these as my concealed carry weapon:
http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89063/objective-individual-combat-weapon.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl
Roo Haa! You’re right. You don’t believe in evolution. You accept it as the science explanation of how species evolve by the adaptation of their environment, dominate genes in a genome cluster, or mutation.
Believing in a 6000 year old earth and an invisible man in the sky is faith.
Chris Matthew’s should have asked do you believe in a young earth.
I don’t believe in evolution. With the earth less than 8000 years old there hasn’t been time for all of that make believe BS.
Hank
However, people can turn Science into a religion. Global Warming is an example.
The Scientific Fact is that Global Warming is happening. But forcing people to react to it, stifling scientific debate on it, politicizing and legislating it, when it’s being portrayed as a doomsday and creating a culture of fear. It’s being turned into dogma.
The same thing happened to evolution during the early part of the 20th century, when a consensus of scientific thought that Eugenics was the best way to perpetuate evolution. To breed humans into a master race and weed out all undesirables in humans. This was accepted as the correct action to take by many people back then, because it became politicized, propagandized, indoctrinated to our youth and soon legislated. T
he National Socialist Party of Germany with Hitler adopted it and started to implement it. It was also implemented all over the world, from Australia to America.Evolution became a religion.
But thank god we got over that and now we just let the scientist study and handle the evolution debate and not politicians and the elite general public.
Now if we can only do that to the Global Warming science. Let the scientist handle it, not Albert Gore and the Hollywood left.
As soon as I figure out how — I’m gonna get one of these as my concealed carry weapon:
Me too. If I can pick it up. It’ll take a hell of a black coat. Every college student should have one.
This is what happens when you don’t pay attention to that bullshit science.
Cuyahoga River Fire
Cleveland »Ohio »On June 22, 1969, the Cuyahoga River caught fire in Cleveland, Ohio. The blaze lasted just thirty minutes, but it did approximately fifty thousand dollars in damage — principally to some railroad bridges spanning the river. It is unclear what caused the fire, but most people believe sparks from a passing train ignited an oil slick in the Cuyahoga River. This was not the first time that the river had caught on fire. Fires occurred on the Cuyahoga River in 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948, and in 1952. The 1952 fire caused over 1.5 million dollars in damage.
On August 1, 1969, Time reported on the fire and on the condition of the Cuyahoga River. The magazine stated,
Some River! Chocolate-brown, oily, bubbling with subsurface gases, it oozes rather than flows. “Anyone who falls into the Cuyahoga does not drown,” Cleveland’s citizens joke grimly. “He decays”. . . The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration dryly notes: “The lower Cuyahoga has no visible signs of life, not even low forms such as leeches and sludge worms that usually thrive on wastes.” It is also — literally — a fire hazard.As a result of this fire, Cleveland businesses became infamous for their pollution, a legacy of the city’s booming manufacturing days during the late 1800s and the early 1900s, when limited government controls existed to protect the environment. Cleveland and its residents also became the butt of jokes across the United States, despite the fact that city officials had authorized 100 million dollars to improve the Cuyahoga River’s water before the fire occurred. The fire also brought attention to other environmental problems across the country and helped lead to the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972
The FBI has returned from Cuba and the investigation of a hotel bomb. Will the US turn over Carriles to Cuba or Venezuela? Will the US declare Carriles a terrorist given his ties and work with/for the CIA?
http://venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2011
“Evolution” is a purposely imprecise word.
A person could reasonably say they believe in evolution if they believe in that which can be demonstrated, such as variations within a species, and yet reject that which cannot be proven such as the theory of common descent. Or they could answer no to the question, because they don’t buy into everything under the “evolution” tent.
It was therefore an unfair and/or poorly phrased question. The answers of the candidates were meaningless.
Brownback is the laughing stock for anybody with a brain. Feel free to step into the new millenium and stop dragging your own knuckles. I just have one thing to say to those people that do not at least recognize evolution as a possibility.
PLEASE EXPLAIN ONE THING…..FOSSILS
God created the world full of fossils and such to keep us thinking it was really old, and thus test our faith!
In other words, it was created old to make us choose between science and faith. I’ve actually heard that argument before. But what kind of Supreme Being post-dates his reality checks? Sounds more like Trickster Coyote, doesn’t it?
Yeah it does Snarky. Its the one thing creationists can’t explain.
A theocracy in D.C.? Say it isnt so…
The Crusaders – “The Christian Taliban is running the Department of Defense”by Robert C. Koehler | May 3 2007
Sixteen words may be all that stand right now between the apparatus of government and the Founding Fathers’ worst nightmare. And those words are starting to give.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”
When George Bush, in the wake of 9/11, puffed himself into Richard the Lionheart and declared he would lead the country in a “crusade” against terrorism — you know, crusade, as in slaughter of Muslim infidels — turns out . . . oh, how awkward (if you’re on White House spin duty) . . . he may have been speaking literally.
What’s certain, in any case, is that a lot of people in high and low places within the Bush administration — and in particular, the military — heard him literally, and regard the war on terror as a religious war:
“The enemy has got a face. He’s called Satan. He lives in Fallujah. And we’re going to destroy him,” a lieutenant colonel, according to a BBC reporter, said to his troops on the eve of the destruction of that undefended city in post-election 2004.
“I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol,” Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jerry Boykin notoriously boasted a few years back, speaking of a Muslim warlord in Somalia. And by the way, George Bush is “in the White House because God put him there.”
more…
Actually Mike, Darwin himself recognized the fossil record as one of the most glaring weaknesses in his theory. The fossil record does not contain the transitional forms that would logically exist if Darwinian theory were true.
I know it is hard for someone that is a person of “Faith” to accept anything other than what some preacher tells them to be true. That is the problem with “Faith”. It requires no proof to be believed. Logic is not necessary nor are facts required to be correct. Just funny that just about every state in the country recognizes evolution except Kansas. Is everybody else wrong?
When you’ve got outlander and Hank and Joe lined up against something, then you know the other side is right.
There’s about as much doubt in the scientific community about evolution as there is now about catastrophic global warming.
But listen to the fundamentalist know-nothings equivocate and obfuscate.
I still don’t undersatnd why the religous right is so threatened by the evidence of evolution or global warming. How is it a threat to the existance of God? Many level headed people have no problem accepting the presence of both.We evolved with brains..too bad many think it an abomination to use them.
Republican reports someone “stealing” another’s e-mail to AOL, and the next thing you know, no one’s e-mail is visible.
(Except those of us who continue to log in to type key).
Kinda puts the lie to the editors’ disingenuous line that “we can’t really do anything about changing this blog . . . “
I have no problem with evolution being taught as theory, but to accept him carte blanche is nothing more than “faith” As evidence is the “fact” that I was taught the evolution of man in science class, with all it’t evolutionary steps, dating back to million years or longer (can;t remember). THe point is, the latest evolutionary technique of DNA testing shows the oldest “common ancester” to be about 66,000 years ago. Nearly all of the transitional or stepping point “men” have been shown to NOT be an ancestor of modern man, but a distinct species that died out. So, everything I was taught was a “lie” because it was not true. That information can be found in a past issue of NEWSWEEK, which is definately not a christian apologetic magazine.
Yeah, Mary, good point.
Evolution is no threat to religious belief at all, anymore than automobiles are “threat” because God didn’t create them in seven days.
First, you have to start with a very simple-minded view scripture and the purpose of scripture.
Then you compound it with the sin of heretical pride–”we know the truth and everyone else is wrong, so we’re the TRUE Christians, not like those others.”
The vast majority of Christians have no problem whatsoever reconciling science and religion. In fact, one can make the case that science re-inforces religious mysticism. Consider the particle-wave paradox of light for example. One can do an experiment that “proves” light is a particle and do another experiment that “proves” it is a wave.
Only the very few who read the Bible for what it is NOT–a history book or a science book have problems with evolution.
Unfortunately, they are the most vocal.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, whichever side you prefer, the paleontological record is quite sparse in transformational species.THere are few “link” fossils in evidence.
Give it time, Little John…there is still a lot that science has yet to discover. Given the age of the earth and teh universe, the science of evolution is in it’s infancy.
the science of evolution is in it’s infancy.
Posted by: Mary Caruso | May 04, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Exactly my point. It should not be taught with the certainty that it is, because it is not a mature sceence, but still in it’s infancy.Unfortunately, it is taught with “absolute faith”. That is the only thing I object to. The only reason it is taught so ferociously by some is that is in opposiiton to creationism, which by the way is not just a “christian” article of faith. To state it as a “christian” belief is ignorant or disingeneous.
Burn on, old river, burn on
The baseball flick with Charlie Sheen, et. al. “Major League?” Too lazy to look it up, but if you listen closely to the lyrics, you’ll hear “burn on.”
It still makes more sense than the idea that the earth was created in 7 days by some guy with a white beard sitting on a cloud throwing lightening bolts!
Joe Williams,
“Let the scientist handle it, not Albert Gore and the Hollywood left.”
The scientists HAVE handled it, and THEY say we need to reduce GHG emissions.
Instead of using Al Gore as a strawman, why don’t you attack the over 600 scientists worldwide who wrote this report?http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Why don’t you defend the falsehoods your side spreads?’Beck’s global warming special dominated by industry-funded “experts,” serial misinformers’http://mediamatters.org/items/200705040001?f=h_topic
You don’t, because you cannot.
So instead you parrot your bogus talking points about Al Gore, the Hollywood left, and religion.
“The fossil record does not contain the transitional forms that would logically exist if Darwinian theory were true.”
This flatly is a falsehood. There are many examples of transitional species in the fossil record. There continues evolution of existing species.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
Just because you don’t want it to be true, doesn’t mean that it isn’t.
Don;t put words in my mouth. didn;t say I did or didn;t want it to be true.And just a quick look at the website? fine. However, it has been shown (it will take a while to dig it out) that birds predated Archeoptrix–one of the cross species identified.
Falsehood as in the “evolution of man” as taught?
Falshoold as in the species of man can be traced back millions years?
Those two things are false. My statement is not
According to the latest, this information from your webpage is totally false(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My(I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 – 125,000 y(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
These are all seperate species that did not “descend” into man
Sorry, I copied too deep. At least (n) is correct, I am not sure about {M)
LJ–
It never fails to amaze me how successful the radical right is in getting their messages out.
People who don’t know the first thing about evolution “know” that there are “no transitional forms.”
Actually, here’s a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
And here’s more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.
Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of ’snapshot’ fossils that show crucial steps between species.
*****
Does it make sense that people who study this all their lives are stupid morons while Bible-thumping fundamentalists with bad toupes know more than they do?
mary-
i wouildn;t take much stock in the theory of some white bearded guy throwing lightning bolts from a cloud either
Um, Littlejohn, evolution is already determined to be scientific fact just as much as gravity so I don’t see where the problem is. It doesn’t phase you that the only species with the broken gene that codes for production of vitamin C is in the hominid branch? If you don’t accept the existence of DNA and fossils then there isn’t much hope for you and I’m sure Brownback enjoys your support.
BTW, you are a transitional form unless you’ve been born without the capacity to reproduce. I’m thinking you don’t understand what that is, or perhaps your theology prevents you from accepting scientifically proven facts.
To quote Mary Chapin Carpenter, here’s another “daily dose of destiny” concerning world wide water shortages.
Forget Oil, Big Business is Coming for your WaterWe talk about hybrid cars and gas conservation, but I suggest that the next and far more worse attack on our lives will come from the privatization of water. It’s happening all around us, and it’s happening faster than you may think. You buy your water from the city, but soon you may have to buy it from a corporation at a premium.
While we can do things to use less gas and even go without, we need water in order to live and aside from a rain catch and in-home purification we are dependent on someone else for our drinking water.
I was turned on to the problem with water privatization when Nestle began buying/stealing water rights to the water sources for Native Tribes throughout the midwest. They did it with little control or oversight from the government. Now they are coming for your municipal water source.
I am still being educated on this growing threat and I ask that you too become more aware of this pending problem so that we may fight it together.
http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/cac/water /
CapnAmerica-
I will not argue for or against evolution. it is a pointless argument. Neither side will recognize the possibility of the other, or the failings of their own positions. My points were three fold
1) The “faith” with which people hold to evolution is mostly that.Lots of posturing on the science side. I have no problem with that, just recognize it for what it is and how frequently it has been wrong
2) Teach evolution as the best understood “theory”, as a science in it’s infancy
3) Creationism is not a “stupid moron Bible thumping fundamentalist” “Christian” limited belief
Doug– If you only knew me as well as you think you do. But then again, if you only knew anything as well as you think you do. Never said I didn;t accept DNA or fossils. Either learn to read with understanding or go the hell away
Doug-
never supported brownback. Unless you know what your taling about an individual, better leave personal traits alon, only shows your ignorance
Doug-
my theology doesn’t prevent me from accepting an proven scientific facts. ANd oh by the way, Neandethrall man, piltdownman and the others have been proven to NOT be ancestor of man by DNA. So, do you not accept scientifically proven fact, or still in your high school textbook.
Farmie,DAMN IT!!! And I LOVE my bottled water. Knew I was getting raped by the price but… Thanx for posting.
CapnAMerica
i understand your post, and I do not wholly disagree. I think however, after reading many journals, that the whole field of paleontological evolution is pretty much guesswork based on few samples and fewer hard evidence. Not to say that it doesn’t exist. I certainly think that there has been lots of evolution in the passage of time. How far that goes into macro eveolution is still waiting to be determined. Again, I have no problem with teaching it as the current scientific theory. But to quote another source “we see through the glass darkly”
By the way, the “guesswork” I mentioned is pretty educated guesswork. No problem with that either.
Capn,”It never fails to amaze me how successful the radical right is in getting their messages out.”
No mystery here. They scream their message all the time at the top of their lungs.
If you repeat something long enough and loud enough, doesn’t that make it true?
By the way, before anybody gets their panties in a knot, or thinks they know what I want, I do not want creationism or intelligent design taught in the public schools.
“my theology doesn’t prevent me from accepting an proven scientific facts. ANd oh by the way, Neandethrall man, piltdownman and the others have been proven to NOT be ancestor of man by DNA. So, do you not accept scientifically proven fact, or still in your high school textbook.”
It appears that there is the scientific fact of evolution and religious myth that supports the absurd notion of creationism.
Neanderthal and modern humans only share about 99.5 to 99.9% of DNA so I can see where you miss the connection. In fact Neanderthals are a great example of genetic divergence since they shared a common ancestor with us from 700,000 years back. I know facts are a pain in the ass for you and DNA is particularly frightful. You claim to accept the reality of DNA yet you disregard the science surrounding it. Sounds like you have a bit of cognitive dissonance to work on.
As for Piltdown man, that’s a perfect example why science should be left to professionals, not amateurs interested in creating circus sideshows.
I will join the group that doesn’t accept evolution as a scientific fact. Darwin recognized this flaw in his own belief. Try as he could he was never able to match fossil records to the world as we live it. He said this in his waning years so I don’t think he had time to resolve it before going to that ‘great unknown’.
I believe in evolution of the species. This means that all species are able to adapt to the climate changes, environmental needs and food resources available around them. In no way do I see this creating entirely new species. The island that is now and always has been inhabited by monkey since recorded history started is a prime example. If evolution theory is fact that island would be a series of evolution in action – there are still just monkeys there.
This is my own personal belief. Like abortion you either believe in it or you don’t. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions and won’t be calling those who disagree with me names.
“LimitationsThe fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. Furthermore, there are also much larger gaps between major evolutionary lineages. These gaps are often referred to as “missing links”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Evolution_of_the_horse
No one candidates belief in evolution will have any bearing on my prez vote. Look at the candidate and don’t place such importance on a part of his persona that does not impact what he will do as prez. What does he think about immigration control, monetary policies, tax increases, national security – these are real issues that will impact our nation.
Total change of subject. A pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals died in a traffic accident while drunk and possibly stoned. The article clearly points out that he died of head injuries.
When will the saftety crats who claim an interest in “saving lives” demand a helmet law for everyone in cars/pickups and SUV’s? Demanding helmets for ONLY motorcyclists is hypocritical and ignores a vast majority of traffic fatalities.
After that football player had a motorcycle wreck last year, people screamed for helmet laws– ignoring the fact that he was injured by a car illegally turning left. I fully expect the same level of outcry for helmet laws for people in cars/pickups and SUV’s after this accident. Especially since this was a fatal accident and the football player was only injured.
Let’s hear it, helmet advocates. Bring on the campaign for universal helmet laws for EVERYONE. Failure to do so proves total hypocrisy and proves the lie about wanting to ’save lives” is just a ruse.
Raptor and with this new helmet law lets make drinking and driving and smoking pot illegal also since we was drunk and had pot in his truck. Wait, they are illegal.
Well maybe we should work on enforcing the laws we have now before issuing new ones.
Joe Williams,
“I might go out and by the magazine to read the article “Is Global Warming a Sin?” by Alexander Cockburn.”(on open thread 1)
Save your money, and instead read what scientists think about his article,’The CO2 rise. Who dunnit’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/this-week/“… It’s hard to know where to start, since his piece is so over the top and gets just about everything so thoroughly wrong, it’s almost comical.”
No XXX,
It makes it believed, not true. However, I think you might have your facts wrong, the GW nuts and the evironmental nitwits seem to be the most shrill with the fewest facts.
Evolution is a theory, but you’ld never know it. The left wing nuts get their panties in a wad if the sugestion is even made that we teach it as a theory. Any facts that don’t support the evolution dogma are conveniently egnored.
Global warming is another theory that isn’t supported by facts. Computer models that have more assumptions than can be reasonably believed are used to further the leftist agenda. Makes no difference that the satelite measurements, the ones most accurate have shown that the eart’s temperature hasn’t changed or might even be a little cooler over the past twenty years. The left has a ‘consensus’.
But it’s the Christians that need to be feared! Heavens! Even though our nation has rapidly fled from its Christian roots for my entire adult life, its the Christians that are winning!
Sorry, XXX, I don’t buy it.
Hank
RaptorI always wear my helmet while smoking dope. This prevents me from injuring myself when I pass out. I do agree with you on helmet laws for motorcyclists. We live in America…you should be free to decide whether you want your brains scattered all over the road.
“I always wear my helmet while smoking dope. This prevents me from injuring myself when I pass out.”
hee hee hee hee. Good one Mike!
I think I may have known you in the 70’s…
Good to see that future serial killer from Wichita has made the big time in news all over the world for killing the ducks. Little POS
If we met in the 70’s farmgrrl I don’t remember. I only started wearing my helmet recently. Right after Bush took office.
HA Solly! I like bottled water too. But…
Whatever happened to carrying a gallon Coleman jug with water and ice? Or a two gallon jug if you are away from home all day?
I am reviving an old farming tradition here. I carry a jug of ice water when I travel or work so I dont have to buy water by the freakin’ ounce. And because I like my well water :)
I know farmers here who now carry an ice chest with bottled water and some sodas, etc.
WTF?
My Dad used to have this tin jug with a spout and wide seated lid. He filled it with well water, wrapped it in wet burlap in the morning, carried it on the no-cab tractor, and drank it all day until sundown.
I’m not advocating that by any means (although I’d like to have a jug like that :) but for crying out loud. Whatever happened to ice, tap water, and Coleman jugs?
Geez. I sound just like my Dad…
Hank Price,
“Makes no difference that the satelite measurements, the ones most accurate have shown that the eart’s temperature hasn’t changed or might even be a little cooler over the past twenty years.”
That’s an old falsehood.
After errors in the satellite data were corrected, the discrepancies were basically gone. Surface and sats both show warming.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_record
Did Kansas schools never teach the definition of a scientific theory? I’m amazed about the ignorance of such a simple concept. A theory is a collection of facts organized to make predictions about future observations. So evolutionary theory is a collection of evolutionary facts. Climate change theory is a collection of climate change facts. I’m wondering why this concept has been so difficult for the scientifically ignorant to understand.
Helmet laws – let motorcyclists make their own choice relative to the conditions. If I am riding on the open road my probability of incident is small and I feel comfortable riding without a helmet. Riding a dirt bike on a trail, I have a much greater probability of going down so I ride wearing a skid lid.
I don’t need the government telling me what to do with my brain pan.
Farmie,The family used to have one too. Short squat fat little thing. Had a little spout to fill a cup at the bottom. Kept the watercool all day on camping trips. Thanx for bringing back that memory.
Getting nice enough outside I might have a jug of sun tea on my desk every day!
y’all take care & be good.
Steven: I scanned your linked article and read the first few “evidences of macro-evolution” since I don’t have time to read it all now. However, I was struck at how the evidence being put forward as evidence of macro-evolution or common descent could just as easily be interpreted as evidence of a common Creator.
“While we can do things to use less gas and even go without, we need water in order to live and aside from a rain catch and in-home purification we are dependent on someone else for our drinking water.”—————–
LOL – The Sierra Club forgot about private wells.
And I have the deepest (private) one in the county.
Good luck with that rain catch.
“Helmet laws – let motorcyclists make their own choice relative to the conditions. If I am riding on the open road my probability of incident is small and I feel comfortable riding without a helmet. Riding a dirt bike on a trail, I have a much greater probability of going down so I ride wearing a skid lid.
I don’t need the government telling me what to do with my brain pan.”—————–
I agree, but at the same time, those without private medical insurance that choose to take risks need to sign a waver in advance that it is okay to let them be treated with minimal expense….since the taxpayer is picking up the tab.
On the other end of the issue – automobile drivers need to be more aware that there are a growing number of bikes on the roadways today, and they are fast little bikes ridden (often) by teens who feel immortal.
Welcome to the Climatology – Paleontology – Anthropology Blog.
Let’s see, what can I add. There are woolly mammoths frozen in place discovered by hungry sled dogs.
Drawings in caves only show mammals as part of their early environment recognition programs to develop a hierarchy of power cultism.
The Tower of Babel still exists in NYC as the UN building.
‘Evian,’ a world famous bottled water spelled backwards is ‘naive’ – an accurate description of the purchasers of the aforementioned product.
Cosmos clones can be seen everywhere wearing sandwich boards claiming the world is coming to an end.
If Evolution is true, then we are a product of inbreeding of primordial slime.
Global Warming Alarmist have failed to take into account the ‘Possibly Heisenberg’ principle of ever changing climates in which they use static bar and graphs to show something is changing. Huh?
The only pure science is cartooning.
Dogs and cats eating the entrails of dead animals apparently get more nutrition and safe food than scientifically calculated canned food.
Only humans would make race tracks circular to indicate a measure of successful innovation.
The amount of hunger a human suffers is proportionally inverse to the political correctness of the convenience factor of his Global neighbors.
Modern drug therapies include ground up, water-downed substitutes that exist naturally and then sold at a price that uses subunits of the metric system identifiers such as grams, milligrams and micrograms. The drug manufacturers of course, buy their basic supplies by the pound.
Water, the universal solvent, comprises the majority of the human body. Which may explain people will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid getting caught in the rain.
The science that has remained consistent throughout the history of man has been the decisions surrounding the placement and disposal of “poop.” It appears to qualify as a ‘growth’ industry.
If one keeps a science book long enough, everything in it will be proven incorrect or at least inaccurate.
Weapons of Mass Destruction has now been reclassified as conveyances carrying humans hurtling down concrete or asphalt pathways without the benefit of seatbelt harness methods.
Dear cosmos,
I appreciate your passion for this subject. However, perhaps your passion is misdirected. Maybe, just maybe your passion is for anything that proves global warming and prevents you from looking at it with an open mind.
Last year the Scientific American on line did a series of articles questioning the whole global warming scam. Now I realize that the ‘Scientific American’ is not nearly as reputable as Wikipedia, especially if it dares to go against the latest liberal religion but its a good read.
On the other side is a good BLOG, Illconsidered.blogspot.com.
I’m pretty open minded on the subject of GW. I’ll admit that I’m a little biased and that I tend to believe data and people that are of the same political bent I am, after all politics are so mixed up in the debate that you have to consider them. However, I am smart enough to understand most scientific articles and I don’t believe in GW.
Now if I was so biased that I only believed the scientific data that was reported by the news and championed by the politicians and ignore all of the data brought forth by respected scientists on the other side I might believe in GW.
I don’t believe man is causing GW. I don’t believe there is GW.If there is GW I don’t think man can do anything about it.
Hank
KFG, I have carried water with me for over 30 years – before it was ‘popular’. It started as a tupperware glass, now it’s an insulated mug filled with ice and water. I don’t purchase bottled water, I think it’s just one more thing going to the dump that can’t be recycled well. For those that drink bottled water yet complain about gas prices, figure the price of a gallon of bottled water! I do have a few bottles that I simply refill when I need to have something like that. I don’t throw them away and get another. Yup, a good ol jug works just fine.
‘we are a product of inbreeding of primordial slime’
the poster of that comment hasnt evolved very far, i dont think
Obviously, according to some here, he needs to look at the theory of Evolution closer, because it only deals with speciation, not lifes orgins…
Hey Wichi! Good to see you!
thanks…been out of pocket for awhile.
Dear Hank,
Are you claiming that the external references at the Wikipedia link I gave are not credible?
WHO is YOUR source for your claim re satellite date: “hasn’t changed or might even be a little cooler over the past twenty years.”
The IPCC bases their reports on peer-reviewed journals, so YOU are claiming that those journals are wrong.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.htmlPage 5 of 18 of Summary for Policy Makers,”New analyses of balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates that are similar to those of the surface temperature record and are consistent within their respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a discrepancy noted in the TAR. {3.2, 3.4}”
Again, who is claiming that the IPCC report is wrong?
The typical wingnut answers to kansas’ water problems?
“I’ve got mine. Too bad for you.”
“It will rain again.”
And the classic:
“WHAT, ME WORRY?”
heheheeh Wichi.
As you can see, you havent missed a damn thing here!
Why is the right so fixed on denying global warming or its causes?
Interesting article here
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/24/68/
Interesting dear,
And this article by the far left proves what?. . .
Hank
The Right is against Global warming because to admit there is a problem would cut into their profits from companies causing the global warming.
That would interfere with their loyalty to their true God – the almight dollar.
I guess if the facts are too hard to understand, just beat up on the right.
Good technique sun. And that adds to the discussion, how?
Hank
Cosmos!They are still debating the particulars. The IPCC is now is Bangkok hammering things out, they’ll be in Bali next to do more debates. It isn’t done yet.
But when Albert Gore preaches to people and telling them that “if” Greenland slides into the Atlantic and “if” the global temperature raises 5 degree Celsius, then ocean levels will rise over 20 feet.
Even the IPCC has defuct that. Saying that it would take over 1000 years for the oceans to rise that much, but Albert Gore makes it out like its going to happen within the next decade.
The problem with religious nuts, is that they listen to Albert Gore, who is no scientist and got many things wrong in his movie, but I will admit that some of his points were accurate, but not all of it. You take his word more than the scientist and the IPCC.
If killing animals is a precursor to serial killing than every little boy in latin america is a future serial killer.
Hey cosmos,
I gave you enough stuff to look at to keep you busy for a month.
The Scientific American online had a series of 4 or 5 articles basically debunking GW in general and anthropogenic GW in particular. There is great discussion and a lot of links associated with the articles and the comments that follow.
The truth of the matter dear cosmos there are a lot of respected scientists on both sides of the argument. A lot.
The IPCC document is so much hokie. A political document with very little input from anyone that disaggrees with the party line.
Hank
Hank – could you provide a link or reference to the SA series? I’d like to read it.
A scientist’s comments on Gore’s movie:
“The science of An Inconvenient TruthThe science presented is mostly good, and at times compelling
Basic global warming scienceGore begins the science part of his talk with a very easy to understand presentation on the basics of how the greenhouse effect works. His speech is clear, the graphics top notch, and he spices it up with a hilarious two-minute cartoon depicting roughneck global warming gases preventing poor Mr. Sunbeam from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Gore addresses the argument of skeptics who claim that the Earth is too big for humans to affect by showing Space Shuttle photos of how thin the atmosphere really is compared to the vast bulk of our planet. “The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide,” he asserts, which is not correct. The build-up of CO2 has virtually no effect on the density or thickness of Earth’s atmosphere. The correct thing to say would have been, “The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being made more opaque to the transmission of infrared radiation (heat) by huge quantities of carbon dioxide.”
Dr. Jeff Masters, Chief Meterologist for the Weather Underground
http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp
I notice that you use the Weather Underground as your only source.
I’m sorry Ben! But every time I see you reference that site, it just reminds me of the Leftist terror organization.
Are they basing their name and website based on or under the same flag?
Sol & KFG – unfortunately I’m hooked to bottled water also! I buy at least one flat (24 bottles) of water every two weeks and sometimes more. I would be fine with carrying bottles of tap water and ice but the tap water in my apartment is nasty. Not to mention that it is a little more convenient to just grab a bottle from the frig on my way out the door.
Bill & Doorking, don’t even get me started on that duck thing… I sure hope that kid gets some help (and a good ass-whooping). I just wish everyone would stop sentencing to life as a serial killer or calling his parents names without hearing the whole story – it’s possible that there’s some deep mental issues here that allow not excusing the behavior explain it.
Apparently I have lost the ability to type… I meant although not allow.
My Dad used to have this tin jug with a spout and wide seated lid. He filled it with well water, wrapped it in wet burlap in the morning, carried it on the no-cab tractor, and drank it all day until sundown.Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 04, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Holy crap. THAT brings back some memories!
My dad, too, used to have a 5-gal galvanized tin jug with a spout and a wide, deep (I think about 3″ or so) lid.
I remember when we’d take the first load of wheat to the coop we’d stop at the ice plant on the way back. The old man would drop a huge chunk of ice in the jug, add well water, fit the lid back in, and wrap the jug in wet burlap (or did the burlap become wet during the day? – don’t remember).
Man, to this day I remember how good that water tasted when had straight from the lid. It looked so clear and clean swirling around in the galvanized tin, and tasted like heaven.
Jesus, I think I’m tearin’ up here. Sniff.
Also: the taste of ice cold Coors at lunch (one can each; if you worked you got a can even if like me you were only 8) during wheat harvest. Man that was good!
Hank Price,
Again, WHO is YOUR source for your claim re the satellite data? The scientists say your claim is incorrect.
Hank: “The truth of the matter dear cosmos there are a lot of respected scientists on both sides of the argument. A lot.”
Please list some of the scientists on your side. If there are “a lot”, you should easily be able to list a few dozen of them.
I’ll provide a partial list for my side — the over 600 scientists who wrote the IPCC’s WG1 report. See the annex, http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Hank: “The IPCC document is so much hokie. A political document with very little input from anyone that disaggrees with the party line.”
SCIENTISTS write the IPCC’s reports. The problem is the bureaucrats water it down in the final edit — things are WORSE than in the reports.And the reports don’t include recent data and theories.
You contradict yourself — first you claim you look at both sides, then you call the scientists report “hokie”. And I guess you ignore it.
Here’s a couple Ben,
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_part_ii&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&commentsPage=4
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_part_ii_1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Hank
Doug, it is always interesting how some people support their theories. I didn’t go to elementary school in Kansas. I was educated in Oklahoma and there we were taught that it was a theory as defined by the Wipi definition below.
The word theory in “theory of evolution” simply means that evolutionary ideas have not been and, indeed, cannot be tested in every possible circumstance. …
If it cannot be tested it cannot be proved, hence it remains a theory.
We creationists are almost as crafty as you evolutionists but you almost slipped that one through.
Pedant, I remember those ice cold Coors as well. The real ones that needed a pointy can opener. OK, I was little too, but I got to split a beer with Dad anyway :)
Then when I got older, my gal pals and I would cruise the co-op to watch the shirtless brown custom cutter guys in line with their trucks. They were usually sitting on the trucks trying to stay cool and LOOK cool too.
heheheh. We were trying pretty hard too. Think Brady bunch with some farm boy Gregs and farm girl Marcias.
Groovy.
Door King there is a big difference in a boy killing animals and fishing for food (if that’s what you’re referring to) and a young boy killing ducks with a pencil for the sheer pleasure of it.BTK got his start by torturing animals..even kept it up into adulthood…it’s the predisposition to an antisocial or sociopathic personality disorder, the stuff serial killers are made from. You can’t really compare the two. Even bull or cock fighting aren’t the same.
This falls under the classification of you have to be fuckin’ kidding.
“NRA against ban on gun sales to terror suspects”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18494626/
From the article:
In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., “would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere ’suspicions’ of a terrorist threat.”
“As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word ’suspect’ has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties,” Cox wrote.
—————————-
But leftist in our country want to release terrorist “suspects” in Gitmo, because they are denied constitutional liberties.
hmmm… It’s ok with guns, but not Gitmo!
Jeffrey Daumer (the keep the kiddie parts in the refrigerator murderer)tortured small animals when he was young.———–Never drank a beer when I was hot and while working. Alcohol dehydrates you and can cause more harm than good.———–I noticed that Dr. Masters is a Meteorologist, not a Climatologist. As Cosmos constantly preaches that weather is not climatology.
GW alarmists will claim ksgrm that they have tested in their computerized climate models. However, they don’t include such things as clouds, earth rotational shift, magnetic pole shifts, plate tectonic plate shifts, cosmic rays, solar flares and other such “unimportant” things.
In fact, ksgrm, the so-called climate science modelers have been known to input the ‘proper’ data until they get the results they want. They are coloring the dinosaur purple to make their theories work. :)———–Excerpt from Scientific American Magazine to keep Cosmos occupied.
1. This past winter was so cold. Where’s the warming?2. The hockey-stick graph, which suggests the present warming trend is historically anomalous, is flawed. One respondent said it “has been proven false by many papers.” Others worried that, at least, it downplays the natural variability in climate.3. The ice core data, one of the ways used to reconstruct past climate conditions, are dubious. They may not represent the global paleoclimate because they sample only a few locations; they appear to contradict the paleobotanic (leaf stomata) data; and they cannot be meaningfully compared with modern surface temperature readings, because they are distinct data sets.4. Ground temperature readings are subject to systematic errors such as the urban heat island effect. One respondent went further and complained that the Climatic Research Unit raw temperature data are “kept under wraps,” so outside observers cannot verify that selection effects were properly accounted for.5. Ground temperature readings contradict satellite measurements.6. Reports of changes in polar climate are anecdotal and could be localized effects.———–The Coleman Company has many ways to keep water cold and available for drinking. Getting those coolers past security guards because of those non-terrorists (according to Democrats) can be challenging.———–I notice one thing in reading the peer-reviewed scientific reports that is submitted to the IPCC is that the term confirmed or proven is never utilized by the Scientists that conduct the research.
However, by the time the IPCC non-scientists get through word smithing the reports everything is solid, proved and confirmed. So why are they lying about these claims?
Almost all of the peer reviewed documents always include the phrase, “further research is needed before a conclusion can be made…etc.”———–
“But leftist in our country want to release terrorist “suspects” in Gitmo”
Wrong, Joe, we only asked that they be given due process or be treated under the Geneva Convention as POW’s.
They are one or the other.
There is no middle ground.
(The email is no longer live.)A rare access to the internet allows me a chance to post. In the 5 weeks I have been without access, I have come to realize just how vital to life in the modern world that internet access is. Our country and indeed our world are made lesser by the absence of internet access to large segments of the economically disadvantaged. Imagine the opportunities for information access that such folk are deprived of! (Deprive yourself of the internet for a few weeks and you get the idea.)One hopes that the Democrats will soon make good on their pledge to bring FREE internet access to the entire American population. That is if they have not forgotten that.
From the wilderness…J R
———–Never drank a beer when I was hot and while working. Alcohol dehydrates you and can cause more harm than good.———–Posted by: Republican | May 04, 2007 at 07:45 PM
LOL
Well, duh. Thank you mommy dearest.
Jesus, what a pussy you must be. ;-)
“There is no middle ground.”
Actually Clark there is a middle ground! It’s located in Gitmo!
They are getting due process, military tribunals that have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Hank
Good to hear from you, JR. Hope you get up and running soon.
“They are getting due process, military tribunals that have been upheld by the Supreme Court.”
And how many have been charged and tried?
Zero.
“If it cannot be tested it cannot be proved, hence it remains a theory.”
This would reflect an incomplete understanding and is not technically correct. In science there are three levels:1) hypotheses2) constructs3) theories
Hypotheses are directly testable and thus observable. Constructs are presumed relations amongst hypotheses and empirical findings. Theories are the assumed relationship among constructs. You are correct in that as you go from hypotheses to theories you are going from more empirical to more abstract and less directly observable.
As you go from 1 to 3 above there is more inference about relationships amongst the factors at hand. So in one way you are right. (See my next paragraph for my problems with what you say above).
Theories do not, as you assert above, languish in some sort of unobservable limbo. If a theory accounts for findings that are empirical and can provide adequate prediction and explanation for the subject at hand – it is accepted as being an accurate account of nature. A useful theory in other words – like Darwin’s theory of evolution, selective pressure, and descent from a common ancestor.
Steven I guess my hang up on accepting a theory as fact is that is by definition a theory has to be falsifiable. This is what keeps it from becoming scientific fact. In other words there are many variables used in a theory that are changeable.
This is true for all theories. When I was in grade school in the 50’s we were taught that evolution was a theory. We were taught that Darwin devoted his life to proving it and went to his death without the link that would have proved it beyond any shadow of a doubt.
I think we are limiting our children when we appear to be afraid of what they might learn if exposed to an opposing view.
My Christianity never felt threatened by my exposure to science – be it evolution or whatever. While many talk about the reputation of Kansas in the eyes of the world on this issue they fail to note that many states have the same or more stringent views on this subject.
Hank Price,
Those SciAm blog links do not debunk AGW — they list the falsehoods used by the AGW skeptics.
For example:”A. Climate scientists have lost their credibility by making bad calls.1. They predicted an imminent ice age in the 1970s.”
That’s totally bogus. A few scientists were making wild guesses about global cooling, and a few journalists hyped the issue.
But there was NO consensus of what the climate was doing, as there is today. The NAS said back then they didn’t even know what questions to ask.
Do you have a list of some of the “respected scientists” on your side?
And WHO is YOUR source for your claim re the satellite data?
Republican,
“Excerpt from Scientific American Magazine to keep Cosmos occupied.”
1) Read my reply to Hank, above.2) It’s their “blog”.3) They’re probably already asked, and answered at http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/guides-by-category.html4) You believe that CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere has the same effect as heating up an “open bottle of Coke”.So why should I waste my time?
“Steven I guess my hang up on accepting a theory as fact is that is by definition a theory has to be falsifiable.”
Hypotheses have to be falsifiable, thus you are starting off completely wrong. I am going assume this is due to ignorance over lying.
I stated it as clearly as I know how to do, in this limited format. As one goes from hypotheses, to constructs, to theory, one goes from more observable to more abstract and inferential.
One accepts theories if they seem to capture and explain the relevant issues. There are many scientists who are longing to bring down a major theory – to develop a hypothesis that does so. I read a study once, which concluded that the truly revoluntary scientists were the younger children in their respective families – who where able to topple the accepted views. That makes sense to me and I would think it might be true. I will continue to think so, until shown strong evidence to the contrary.
Grm, having gone to college is not equal to understanding the processes of science. I am willing to consider that you simply don’t know what you are talking about – though, you do, by mistake, or luck, almost get close to doing so.
Thanks, and good night.