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
- gster on Open thread 11/23
- LonnythePlumber on Health care reform would save state money
- aldenrw on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
113 Comments
Studies in the irrefutable fact of evolution explain the origin of right and left, but we still have yet to master the concept of push and pull on doors.
Snails And Humans Use Same Genes To Tell Right From Left
ScienceDaily (Dec. 22, 2008) — Biologists have tracked down genes that control the handedness of snail shells, and they turn out to be similar to the genes used by humans to set up the left and right sides of the body.
The finding, reported online in advance of publication in Nature by University of California, Berkeley, researchers, indicates that the same genes have been responsible for establishing the left-right asymmetry of animals for 500-650 million years, originating in the last common ancestor of all animals with bilateral body organization, creatures that include everything from worms to humans.
“Previous studies indicated that the methods for breaking left-right symmetry in animals seem to differ widely, so there was nothing suggesting that the common ancestor of humans, snails and other bilateral organisms had a common strategy for left-right asymmetry,” said Nipam H. Patel, UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology and of molecular and cell biology, and an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
More real science (not creationist whining) at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081221210157.htm
Good morning Maggie.! Thanks for the article on the scientific study providing affirming evidence that snails and man had the same Maker!
Great day folks. Up to 60 degrees. Get out and enjoy it.
States slash Medicaid amid economic woes
Coverage for the poor is curtailed with deeper cuts expected in 2009
States from Rhode Island to California are being forced to curtail Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor, as they struggle to cope with the deteriorating economy.
With revenue falling at the same time that more people are losing their jobs and private health coverage, states already have pared their programs and many are looking at deeper cuts for the coming year. Already, 19 states — including Maryland and Virginia — and the District of Columbia have lowered payments to hospitals and nursing homes, eliminated coverage for some treatments, and forced some recipients out of the insurance program completely.
Many are halting payments for health-care services not required by the federal government, such as physical therapy, eyeglasses, hearing aids and hospice care. A few states are requiring poor patients to chip in more toward their care.
“It’s not a pretty list at all,” said Michael Hales, Medicaid director in Utah.
Medicaid, a central piece of the Great Society safety net created in the 1960s, is the nation’s largest source of government health insurance. It covered 50 million Americans last year. The program is a shared responsibility of the federal government and the states, with federal money paying an average of 57 percent of the bills and states providing the rest.
Federal health officials set minimum rules about who can enroll and what care must be covered, but states are free to add to the basics. Those optional patients and services are what many states are rethinking now.
Dems sympathetic?
With the program the largest or second-largest expense in every state’s budget, governors and state legislators have been pleading with Congress and the incoming Obama administration for help. The Democrats, who hold majorities in the House and the Senate, are sounding sympathetic for now. They are considering close to $100 billion to increase the share of Medicaid’s costs that the federal government would pay during the next two years.
President-elect Barack Obama also is open to extra help for Medicaid as part of a broad strategy to spur the economy. “We are considering a number of proposals . . . including helping states meet Medicaid needs; reducing health-care costs; rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges and schools; and ensuring that more families can stay in their homes,” said Nick Shapiro, an Obama transition spokesman.
According to a Washington source who is in close contact with lawmakers, some in Congress also are beginning to entertain the idea of allowing unemployed people who have lost health benefits to sign up for Medicaid, with federal money paying the entire bill.
In the meantime, uncertainty over how much help may come, and when it might arrive, is prompting many states to make the biggest reductions to their Medicaid programs in years — and in some cases, ever.
‘Cuts into the core’
Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the pressure on Medicaid programs is particularly acute because the economy has deteriorated so soon after a milder recession early in the decade. States already “have taken the cuts that were making the program more efficient. . . . Now they are making . . . cuts into the core,” she said.
Nineteen states and the District have cut Medicaid for the current fiscal year, according to a survey this month by Families USA, a liberal consumer health lobby. All but one, plus six other states, are drafting deeper reductions for the coming fiscal year that they hope to avoid. Florida’s Medicaid officials have just handed the governor and legislature a blueprint for a 10 percent reduction; it would eliminate coverage for 7,800 18- and 19-year-olds and 6,800 pregnant women.
Among the states with the gravest financial problems — and pressures on Medicaid — is California. In July, Medi-Cal, as the program there is known, slashed by 10 percent the rates it pays hospitals, nursing homes, speech pathologists and other providers of health care. It tried to lower payments to doctors and dentists, too, but they have sued to block the decreases.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has asked the state legislature to approve other cuts, including an end to dental care for adults, about 1 million of whom use it now, and a sharp reduction in care for recent immigrants.
At two hospitals run by NorthBay Healthcare, midway between San Francisco and Sacramento, about one patient in five is on Medi-Cal. The rate cuts translate into a $4 million loss this year. In September, the health system closed a rehabilitation program for children that provided physical therapy, speech therapy and other help to about 300 young patients at a time — with 100 more usually on the waiting list.
“It was heart-wrenching to have to go out and announce,” said Steve Huddleston, NorthBay’s vice president of public affairs.
Maggotpunk,
What part of Evolution is “Irrefutable fact?”
Is it the part where Evolutionary theory has to assume life to begin?
Idiot.
Nathan, what part of creationism is irrefutable fact?
Is it the part that states the earth was created in 7 days?
Idiot.
Dear Mary,
Creation took only six days, on the seventh our Lord rested.
Ha!
Last night I looked at Hubbel’s beautiful pictures of nebulas from distant places…some billions of light years away. If we’re only now seeing the light after billions of years..how is it possible that it was all created in just 6 days?
Just askin’, Hank.
I left out an important part of my post, I meant in “6 days, 10,000 years ago”.
Probably less than 8,000 years ago, Mary. But since my salvation doesn’t depend on it I’ll try and not get to picky.
Me? I’m still waiting for that definitive find of either a dinosaur with a humans foot in its mouth, or a human with a dinosaurs foot in his mouth. Somehow, I just don’t think that’s gonna happen, and I’ll leave it at that:-)
HDChaplainCorps
Posted December 25, 2008 at 11:26 pm | \l “comment-491550″
Hey WriterDog! Great respect to your son and his service to the country.
I can see why he chose the military though. His dad sure as hell can’t write.
Thank you for your respect for my son, he does deserve it, but I do have one question.
“Just what does or does not my ability to write have to do with my son going in the Army?”.
I am not sure whether the saying was actually said by Confucius but it is attributed to him:
“It is better to remain silent and appear to be stupid then to open one’s mouth and leave no doubt”.
Though there are many pliable reasons for someone to join the military. A parent’s ability to write is grasping at straws at best. And boarding on not of rational logic to conclude at worst. This is a different day and I am sure if or when you may re-read your statement. Your conclusion would be “damn just how far was my head up my ass when I decided to say that?”. Otherwise you might have left it at,
“Hey WriterDog! Great respect to your son and his service to the country“.
But again thank you for your respect for my son.
Hard to believe but here is postive outlook article on the economy for 2009. US News Report
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/News/5-reasons-the-economy-might-recover-faster-than-you-think.aspx
HDChaplinCorps is a troll, originally probably an identity created to get reactions from Chas (as if that’s hard).
Writerdog, I enjoy your posts, even though we probably don’t agree on some fundamentals (e.g., I am not a fan of libertarianism). Hope your son stays safe.
“Probably less than 8,000 years ago, Mary. But since my salvation doesn’t depend on it I’ll try and not get to picky.”
No logical answer, huh?
Is one’s salvation dependant on denying the obvious?
Mary,
Show me where I ever said that Creation is an “irrefutable fact” like maggotpunk is on here claiming every day about Evolution and then I will answer your stupid question based on a false premise which I never asserted.
Idiot.
Here I always thought Suzy Benaughts was just horny.
Turns out we both had something else in common in junior high!
Had I known this, I could have just blamed mom for not feeding me. Hell, I was a victim!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473072,00.html
Mary,
A logical answer? Easy.
When God created Adam and Eve, how old were they?
“then I will answer your stupid question based on a false premise which I never asserted.
Idiot.”
What’s the matter, Nathan? Did Santa leave coal in your stocking?
I was just attempting to illustrate to you how abrasive you are. Do unto to others and all that.
“Creation” disproves itself WHILE reaffirming evolution by way of natural selection.
Consider the extremely limited time frame creation allows. THEN throw in a flood that destroys all life somewhere along that limited span.
The distribution of species over the remaining allowed few thousand years to seven continents stretches the limits of even the most generous imagination.
RECONSTRUCTION OF OLIVER, HARRY TO KELLOGG
Date: December 24, 2008
Contact: Communications Team
Phone: (316) 268-4351
Information Meeting Monday, Dec. 29
Oliver, from Harry to Kellogg, will undergo improvements in 2009, with work slated to begin on Jan. 5 if weather allows. A public information meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m., Monday, Dec. 29 at Victory Baptist Center, 812 South Oliver.
The $5.9 million reconstruction project will widen Oliver to provide a five-lane roadway including four through lanes and a center two-way turn lane. Right turn lanes will be installed at Parklane Shopping Center. New traffic signals will be installed at the intersections of Oliver at Harry and Lincoln, with dual turn lanes at all four approaches to Harry.
The storm water sewer system will be upgraded and a five-foot wide sidewalk will be constructed along both sides of the street. Water and sewer line improvements are also part of the project.
Traffic on Oliver will be limited to one lane in each direction, and left turns at Harry and Lincoln will be restricted during much of the project. Traffic on Harry and Lincoln also will be restricted to one lane in each direction for three of the four phases of the project. Access to businesses will be maintained during construction.
The projected completion date for the construction work is Oct. 31, 2009. Restoration of turf areas will be in the spring of 2010.
I see Nathan is still at it with his anti-science jabs at evolution.
Decrying that is “just a theory” just makes you look stupid. Gravity too is just “a theory”. We cannot prove it as “a fact”, but does that make it any less real?
Get over yourself and your “religion”.
Why the hell can’t they finish up Kellogg and Rock Road before they tear up more intersections? I’m so sick of manuvering around all the road work!!!!
Actually, gravity is a law.
And I can go outside every day and test it and measure it.
When was the last time we were able to observe, test, or study over 90% of Evolutionary theory?
Lets start with life. You know, the one that must be assumed to exist for Evolution to begin.
Mary,
Since day one you have been nothing but abrasive on this blog. I am absravie to idiots like you who deserve it.
Since when did you care about being abrasive?
Lets start with life.
Lt. Uhura, report.
There’s Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;
there’s Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, Jim.
Analysis, Mr. Spock.
It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it;
it’s life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain.
How many random pools of organic ‘goo’ does it take to form a living organism?
Where is the ‘missing link?”
Why do people give credit to the ‘arch’ to the Romans, when it was utilized in Mesopotamia a thousand years earlier?
Why are there ‘flood stories’ all over the world?
What’s in KFC’s ’secret recipe’ original fried chicken?
“Since day one you have been nothing but abrasive on this blog. I am absravie to idiots like you who deserve it.”
Wow..the Christian kindness and love are just radiating from you this morning, Nathan!
Just let your black mood pass and try to have a good day..remeber God loves you, too.
Really Nathan, gravity is a law?
I suppose that’s why it is called Newton’s “Theory of Gravitation”?
Would you care to produce that particle that causes gravity?
Oh, Nathan, please show me how you measure gravity and with what instrument?
Gun totin santa, that guy was a nut. Should have started with himself!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081226/ts_nm/us_usa_santa_shooting_5
Ever hear of the equation F = ma?
Take a basic Physics class?
Even know what the acceleration of gravity is?
And last I checked it was Newtons law of gravity, not “theory”
When was the last time you were in school?
There is even a formula for that one too:
F= G((m1m2)/r^2)
I’ve taken just a few science classes in my time, probably more than you. I know the formula. That constant has little to do with the fact that gravity is a theory just like evolution. Even though a theory, gravity is real as is evolution.
Deal with it in that narrow little mind of yours.
Here you go Nathan, a link to a website I’m sure you are all too familar with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Oh, evoultion is still a theory and it is still just as real as gravity (another theory).
I never claimed that we completely understand gravity, but it is there. It can be measured.
Now, tell me again what part of the theory of Evolution can be tested, measured, or observed.
Lets start with life.
Can we observe how life came into existence? No.
Can we test that? No.
Can we measure it? No.
Yet, Evolutionary theory “assumes” that it simply was.
Sounds real scientific to me.
Lets try logic.
The mere fact that both Evolution and Gravity might be theories doesn’t then prove that simply bcause one is true so is the other because both are theories.
You are pathetically hopeless in your ignorance of science Nathan.
Your contorted use of “logic” to disprove evolution is very humorous. It is apparent that your mind is stuck in the scientific dark ages. I see little hope for you.
What is you religious types fear from evolution? Could it be that decent from an earlier organism might dispel you belief that the Earth is only 8000 years old and that some mystical entity created the world in seven days? Does the thought of evolution undermine your entire belief system centered around a mythical being that is omnipotent, yet you cannot prove its existance?
Blaidd_Drwg69 posted December 26, 2008 at 11:19 am
You are pathetically hopeless in your ignorance of science Nathan.
—————
Very true. Nathaniel believes that an agricultural ECONOMIST who lies about what climate scientists believe is a credible climate science source.
Cosmos, it seems to run in tha family.
So Blaidd_Drwg69,
Instead of copping out with an ad hominem, argue science with Nathans – you know, since you’ve taken a science class or two. :D
BTW, welcome come Nathan, Kansas > Virginia. :D
Wow, look at all those people just assuming stuff all over the place!
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
Thanks Regular!
Hope you have been doing well this Christmas season.
Well James, what is the point is “arguing” science with Nathan or anyone else when they REJECT real science?
If assigning ignorance of reality is an “ad hominem”, then I am guilty. Evoultion is a reality, it occurs every minute of every day in the natural world. Just becuase one chooses to believe otherwise doesn’t make evolution a myth.
What IS a an unprovable myth is the belief in a unprovable, omnipotent being.
Wait a minute here.
My contorted use of logic?
It was you trying to suggest that simply because gravity is a well established and understood theory and true that simply because Evolution is a theory as well it must also be just as true as gravity.
I point out YOUR bad logic and somehow that is my contorted use of logic?
Wow… Talk about twisting things.
Hey, Creation is just as real and valid as Evolution.
The only difference is that you “assume” life for your theory and I “assume” God for mine.
Same difference.
Bait and switch again Nathan?
Evolution is real until you prove otherwise.
Nathaniel
Posted December 26, 2008 at 11:45 am | Permalink
Hey, Creation is just as real and valid as Evolution.
The only difference is that you “assume” life for your theory and I “assume” God for mine.
Same difference.
_________________________________________________________
I call BS on this one Nathan, total BS.
Nathan, if the existence of God is a theory, what experiments should we design to confirm or refute it?
Blaidd_Drwg69
Posted December 26, 2008 at 11:43 am | Permalink
Well James, what is the point is “arguing” science with Nathan or anyone else when they REJECT real science?
===================
So you’re saying you are not knowledgeable enough in science to discuss it at a theoretical level?
I think we should cut “Nathaniel” a little slack here.
He was off to Weekend Warrior Summer Camp (in the winter. go figure) for a month and “HLP” and the Boy have just been catching up on lost right-wing twice-born anti-intellectual circle jerks.
If “Nathaniel” didn’t have this forum to shoot his wad of arrogant ignorance, he’d be humping the sofa like his father’s
favoriteother pets; the ones who at least have an excuse for being cloying lapdogs.Regular
Posted December 26, 2008 at 11:54 am | Permalink
Blaidd_Drwg69
Posted December 26, 2008 at 11:43 am | Permalink
Well James, what is the point is “arguing” science with Nathan or anyone else when they REJECT real science?
===================
So you’re saying you are not knowledgeable enough in science to discuss it at a theoretical level?
________________________________________________________________
I think those are your words.
I suppose you’re claiming expertise in gravitatioal theory as well?
Is there anything you don’t have superior knoweldge than the rest of the world Jimmy?
Nathaniel,
Maybe you can find an agricultural economist and a Senator from Oklahoma to support your scientific(sic) theory of creation? Like you do for your denial of AGW science.
#
Blaidd_Drwg69
Posted December 26, 2008 at 11:57 am | Permalink
Regular
Posted December 26, 2008 at 11:54 am | Permalink
Blaidd_Drwg69
Posted December 26, 2008 at 11:43 am | Permalink
Well James, what is the point is “arguing” science with Nathan or anyone else when they REJECT real science?
===================
So you’re saying you are not knowledgeable enough in science to discuss it at a theoretical level?
________________________________________________________________
I think those are your words.
I suppose you’re claiming expertise in gravitatioal theory as well?
Is there anything you don’t have superior knoweldge than the rest of the world Jimmy?
—————–
I haven’t claimed anything.
I asked if ‘YOU’ were knowledgeable enough in theoretical science (physics, biology, chemistry, etc) to discuss it.
I’ll take your avoidance answering the question that you are not qualified to discuss how the various theories in science are derived at and how they work.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are implying a standing of some sort of superior scientific knowledge where you have none.
Reguliar,
Explain to us again how a tiny correction in the international CO2 reference gas proves that all of the scientists who earlier properly used that reference gas were “sloppy”.
Sorry cosmos, that isn’t helpful. Perhaps you need to go post more climate alarmist stuff on a Christmas greeting thread again.
You are indeed a ‘one-trick pony’ and broken record.
“The only difference is that you “assume” life for your theory and I “assume” God for mine.” — nat.
My point exactly. You’ve just admitted an equal basis for a belief in God or a belief in science. If your explanation for the existence of God is God just “is” than the universe can just “be.” What both statements boil down to is a verb. Tell me what “is” is, and we just might get somewhere.
Nice Tillichian play on words there, Beber! WTG!
I followed HLP to Dillons and HLP did not return the cart to the cart corral. The shoppoing cart was left in the parking lot to hit a car! Then put a washer instead of money in the Salvation Army’s kettle. I have noticed, after someone else pointed it out, that HLP is thoughtless and a plagarizing machine. Don’t read anything cut and pasted by HLP and the world will be a better place. Merry Christmas and remember the reason for the season- to ignore HLP and the right wing wacko crapola expelled by this horsed petut.
“God is in all things and everywhere present.” Martin Luther – Word and Sacrament, Vol. _____??
“Thus, in the Holy Eucharist, God is especially present in, with, and under, the forms of bread and wine.” — Martin Luther on Sacraments —
And so, we could extrapolate with Luther, that since God is in all things and everywhere present, then God is in the scientific process of Evolution, as well as Creation.
Perhaps that is as good as it gets. Leave Science in the laboratory house, and God in the Church house.
“Thus, in the Holy Eucharist, God is especially present in, with, and under, the forms of bread and wine.” — Martin Luther on Sacraments —
P. S. — Luther explaining the Doctrine of Real Presence in the Eucharist.
If anyone is actually interested in recent experimental work on the theory of evolution, you might want to check out this work from the WSU library:
http://libcat.wichita.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=evolution%2C%20experiment&Search%5FCode=GKEY%5E%2A&CNT=30&PID=0diTD9REtGzP80pOj-TCNyPg0NN7&SEQ=20081226122032&SID=2
Rage, conflating a belief in God and an acceptance of the theory of evolution is a creationist trick that is time-tested. It is at least 100 years old, if not older.
I’m wondering after reading posts here if the holiday spirit is officially over?
I’m wondering after reading posts here if the holiday spirit is officially over?
Did it even begin? I saw the same thing before the holiday.
Merry Christmas, SED.
Ah, I see. You were speaking generally.
I hope not.
Since Christmas technically ended yesterday, ANTI, I guess I’m gonna hafta go with “Happy Holidays”!
Since Christmas technically ended yesterday, ANTI, I guess I’m gonna hafta go with “Happy Holidays”!
—————-
I’ve never been one for technicalities.
May you’re goats grow fat!
your….jeez
I guess I’m gonna hafta go with “Happy Holidays”!
———-
I’ll just go with ‘happy Friday’, then.
Peace out.
Steven — check this out >>>>
http://www.clergyletterproject.org
The Clergy Letter Project is no where close to being in league with Creationists… in fact, just the opposite…. The head person of the Clergy Letter Project is one of the Deans at Butler University. His email address is on the web site.
Happy Holidays to all!! And a Happy, Safe, Sane New Year as well!!
Oooops….
http://www.theclergyletterproject.com
Sorry bout that!!
Reguliar,
I still don’t understand why you blame Scripps for a correction that was later made to the international reference gas that they properly used to calibrate their measurements.
How could Scripps “calibrate” with the corrected international reference gas that did not exist until years later?
JM posted January 20, 2007 at 10:06 pm
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/01/bush_joining_go/#comment-116308
“And I’ve told you at least 2 dozen times now about the calibration.
YOU DO NOT CALIBRATE AFTER SAMPLES ARE TAKEN!
YOU CALIBRATE BEFORE SAMPLES ARE TAKEN!
THE DATA IS COMPROMISED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT FOLLOW BASIC SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE.
Now, if Cosmos doesn’t acknowledge this explanationn, everyone will just conclude he is a psycho incapable of rational thought.”
Rage — In some places, today is merely the Second Day of Christmas(the Season), which ends at either sundown, or at midnight Jan.5 — depending on the “tradition” —
Jan. 6, Epiphany, marks the visit of the Magi.
Monkey???
That would make “We Three Kings” also not a Christmas Carol either… Rather, an Epiphany Carol… And they werent “kings”, but “wise men” — which would be astrologers, or soothsayers…
But dont say that too loud to directors of Annual Sunday School Christmas Pagaents, who scrounge around every year for “burger king” style hats(crowns) and bath robes LOL
So snails have genes similar to humans. What does that prove? Now all you have to do is prove they were not created that way. Then you will have something more than a theory. I’m still waiting for the irrefutable facts.
BTW, has everyone seen maggot’s website? It’s very insightful, especially the pics.
Nathan whines,
“What part of Evolution is “Irrefutable fact?”
Is it the part where Evolutionary theory has to assume life to begin?”
Life does exist you know, it doesn’t have to be assumed. But thanks for proving, once again, that creationists can only whine and make excuses.
I do find it amusing that I can present another study supporting and expanding the irrefutable fact of evolution and it sends the anti-science creationist nutjobs in a frenzy of anger and hate. Is it scientific evidence for the irrefutable fact of evolution or is it any scientific knowledge that gets them upset. Perhaps there’s a part of their brain for knowledge which, when activated, causes them immense mental anguish. It’s probably that part of the brain that contains their shallow faith which must be protected with maintaining a high level of ignorance.
Or maybe it’s just because fundies are hateful people.
Monique whines,
“So snails have genes similar to humans. What does that prove? Now all you have to do is prove they were not created that way. Then you will have something more than a theory. I’m still waiting for the irrefutable facts.
BTW, has everyone seen maggot’s website? It’s very insightful, especially the pics.”
First, scientists don’t have to disprove a negative. It’s up to the creationists to support their claims. Second, you haven’t been to my website in awhile because I chose not to renew the contract at the beginning of December. But I suppose getting knowledge is a bit too difficult for you (but you are a creationist, that should be enough of an explanation).
MP, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have no mental anguish, anger or hate. In fact I am very much at peace. Have a nice day.
Monique, then why are you so averse to acquiring knowledge? The irrefutable fact of evolution is quite easy to understand. The scientists present their data (creationists don’t). New species have been observed evolving so the evidence is irrefutable. I have yet to see creationists create a living being out of nothing, or, for that matter, refute anything real scientists have presented supporting the irrefutable fact of evolution.
MP, I never said when I went to your website. You made an assumption that it was after the beginning of December. It’s a warm day. I’m going outside to enjoy it. I hope you will too.
cosmos is so predictable.
cosmos has even admitted himself (I have his quote) that climate models are inaccurate.
So, what does cosmos base his alarmist science on?
zilch, nada, zero…
Even IPCC admit their climate models cannot and do not include all the data for climate change.
It’s kind of like evolution of man – with out their mythical missing link.
No Joy – no prize
Thanks for the link Chas. The Methodist Church and Pope John Paul have both gone on record supporting the validity of the theory of evolution. So, you are correct religion and evolution are not necessarily locked into competing explanations.
Conflating science and faith suggests to me that people who do that don’t understand either one. Kind of the worst of both worlds.
MP, Our posts crossed. I love acquiring knowledge, especially when it shows how awesome God is. You are absolutely right about one thing. Humans cannot “create a living being out of nothing.” Only God can do that. :)
Maggotpunk posted December 26, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I do find it amusing that I can present another study supporting and expanding the irrefutable fact of evolution and it sends the anti-science creationist nutjobs in a frenzy of anger and hate. Is it scientific evidence for the irrefutable fact of evolution or is it any scientific knowledge that gets them upset
————–
It’s probably because evolution threatens their religious beliefs.
And they deny the huge amount of solid AGW science, because they hate carbon taxes, Al Gore, and the U.N.
Reguliar,
How could Scripps “calibrate” with the corrected international reference gas that did not exist until years later?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/indext.html
Regular posted December 26, 2008 at 1:31 pm
No Joy – no prize
—————–
That describes the AGW deniers perfectly — they cannot find any science to refute AGW.
I’m a firm believer in Theistic Evolution. “Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations.” I seriously doubt God made the universe in six days as we denote days. I expect one “God day” is equal to roughly 2.5 billion years.
What I would like to see is Creationists theories as to how long their “God day” is. Point is, nowhere in the bible does it say exactly how much time those six days took. There are just too many contradictions in the bible to use it as a old testament historical reference, especially when referencing creation.
For instance, Adam and Eve, and their two sons. Leaves one to assume the sons mated with Eve, since she produced no female offspring. Or, the story of Adam and Eve is way different than the bible interpretation, if, in fact, it even references anything resembling the truth.
Monique claims:
“MP, I never said when I went to your website. You made an assumption that it was after the beginning of December. It’s a warm day. I’m going outside to enjoy it. I hope you will too.”
I make it based upon the assumption that since you never posted under this name since after December 1st that you hadn’t been to it before. Unless, of course, you care to reveal the nic that you normally post under.
cosmos once again avoid admitting that climate models are inaccurate and it is precisely what cosmos relies on for future climate change.
What part of inaccurate and prediction not going together has cosmos confused?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted December 26, 2008 at 1:42 pm | Permalink
Reguliar,
How could Scripps “calibrate” with the corrected international reference gas that did not exist until years later?
========================
So you are admitting that gas collection data was inaccurate for many many years, maybe as much as 10 fold factor when dealing with ppm increments.
Reguliar once again avoids the fact that he cannot find any science to refute AGW.
Reguliar posted December 26, 2008 at 4:02 pm
What part of inaccurate and prediction not going together has cosmos confused?
—————–
The inaccuracies are mainly due to unknown FUTURE natural positive feedbacks, which will worsen the warming caused by AGW.
Hansen’s 1988 projection was fairly accurate, and models have greatly improved since then.
Reguliar posted December 26, 2008 at 4:08 pm
So you are admitting that gas collection data was inaccurate for many many years, maybe as much as 10 fold factor when dealing with ppm increments.
—————-
Nope. It was accurate based on the older reference gas, and revised when that reference gas was revised.
“Humans cannot “create a living being out of nothing.” Only God can do that. :) — Noninque
Yes but they can assemble a virus from off-the-shelf parts capable of reproduction and of infecting and killing a human being.
US scientists have taken a major step toward creating the first ever artificial life form by synthetically reproducing the DNA of a bacteria, according to a study published Thursday. “Through dedicated teamwork we have shown that building large genomes is now feasible and scalable so that important applications such as biofuels can be developed,” said Dr. Hamilton Smith,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846861/posts
Man-mad species.
Well, Noninque, what would happen to your theology if man could actually create life — would you lose your faith?
“Well, Noninque, what would happen to your theology if man could actually create life — would you lose your faith?”
Multi-niced Monique would simply see it as confirmation that life was created by god since anyone can do it. Of course that would make the divine no more powerful than mortals. Creationists will just deny or twist facts to fit their preconceived notions.
#
beber
Posted December 26, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846861/posts
Man-mad species.
Well, Noninque, what would happen to your theology if man could actually create life — would you lose your faith?
———————-
What if a frog had wings?
#
Regular
Posted December 26, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Permalink
What if a frog had wings?
=========================================================
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/143500/143620OTWS_w.jpg
Since it is inevitable scientist will be able to create life by assembling the proper molecules in the proper orders, the question will go back to a deeper and more mysterious question.
One of Darwin’s contemporaries – a top scientist, ad well respected, (his name eludes me) could not refute that evolution was fact. But he could not go all the way. He insisted that, even though evolution was responsible for all of life’s manifest forms, God had to have singularly produced the human brain.
We we put the right biological nano-machine parts together in a test tube, the cry will be that God created the soul. (Tests for this hypothesis will not be proffered.)
Weather does not equal climate.. but Geezus! 70°F!!!! I saw a moth flying around outside…
That frog could FLY on the moon! Woohoo!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the pix!
By the way.. check out the German houses that are nearly 100% heat retaining… http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?_r=1&hp
No heating bills… 5 – 7 % higher construction costs… Pie-in-the-sky- I dunno. 15,000 of them world wide..
I hate change.. but Geeez
DavidB,
Thank you for the NY Time houses link.
Some more, from a link at NYT.
http://www.passivehouse.us/passiveHouse/Articles.html
Even on more typical houses, the higher costs for making it more energy efficient are partly offset by being able to use smaller (cheaper) A/C and heating units. And that’s NOT factoring in lower utility bills.
Where’s Nathan?
Don’t miss him, but just wondering…
#
DavidB
Posted December 26, 2008 at 7:28 pm | Permalink
We we put the right biological nano-machine parts together in a test tube, the cry will be that God created the soul. (Tests for this hypothesis will not be proffered.)
_________________________________________________
If we created such a creature, would it be “human”? Would it have a soul?
Maggotpunk
Posted December 26, 2008 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
“Well, Noninque, what would happen to your theology if man could actually create life — would you lose your faith?”
Multi-niced Monique would simply see it as confirmation that life was created by god since anyone can do it. Of course that would make the divine no more powerful than mortals. Creationists will just deny or twist facts to fit their preconceived notions.
————
Maggie, when will you realize that, no matter how you look, your creation was not an accident?
But if you insist on this line of silliness, be sure to let me know when man pretends to be God and creates life. Personally, I don’t think that it will ever be allowed to get to that point. But if it does, we will reap the whirlwind.
You can believe what you want outlandish, but thankfully like many fundy nuts before you, they also thought that zyx couldn’t be done, only to be proven wrong by …usually an atheist.
We WILL create life.
We are already doing it.
A computer virus is not significantly different from a biological one.
The silicon based life we create will not have our senses. It will not have any senses. It will be purely rational.
It would seem to be in our own self defense to make compassion a component of rationality. Efficiency, productivity, these are NOT the things we should bequeath to our creation as we hold up very poorly in that light.
#
StevenEDavis
Posted December 26, 2008 at 9:44 pm | Permalink
Where’s Nathan?
Don’t miss him, but just wondering…
_____________________________________
He’s working, Steven.
(you know you miss him)
BlueJay
Posted December 26, 2008 at 10:30 pm | Permalink
We WILL create life.
We are already doing it.
A computer virus is not significantly different from a biological one.
_________________________________________________
BlueJay, a computer virus is just a code. There’s no life there. It’s just a bunch of on/off switches.
Hank posted December 26, 2008 at 10:37 pm
(you know you miss him)
—————
I don’t know about Steven, but I laugh at Nathaniel’s logic(sic) — like his belief that a LYING AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIST is a credible climate science source.
Outlander whines:
“Maggie, when will you realize that, no matter how you look, your creation was not an accident?
But if you insist on this line of silliness, be sure to let me know when man pretends to be God and creates life. Personally, I don’t think that it will ever be allowed to get to that point. But if it does, we will reap the whirlwind.”
I never asked my parents if I was an accident. Anyway, I’m sure humanity will never pretend to play god because they can’t be that immoral and inhumane. Sure fundies try to be but even a fundy would get tired of mass genocide after awhile.
But if you insist your fictional god actually created life do you have anything to back that up with. I mean anything substantial other than typical creationist whining?