Thread: Rick Perry and Galileo, aye?

Originally Posted by SupPackFan

Remember, we are talking about creationism allowed to be discussed in the classroom, which I do not feel is the equivilent of being 'taught'. The origins of the modern human is still a scientific mystery. I think that is the important point here. I think it is healthy to allow young minds to explore all possibilities on scientific concepts like time, black holes, the big bang, and the origin of mankind. And if one kid offers some theory that George Washington sported female genitalia, let him speak, but only give him the amount of time his arguement deserves. There is a difference, as the gender of George Washington is not a historical mystery - the origin of mankind is. Unless you have proof we came from monkeys, and can explain why our DNA suggests a far different story.

I fear that on this specific subject MeadHallPirate has fallen for the secular propagandists. The same ones ripping the ten commandments down from every courtroom in America. Unfortunately, we have many liberals in this country who want kids to be taught that man evolved from monkeys as if this is proven fact while banishing all other theories from the classroom. Open minded liberals, the same ones who claim global consensus on the subject of climate change and refuse to hear any opposing theories.

(My emphasis)

If you discuss creationism in a classroom, it would have to be in a comparative religions classroom. There's no point in bringing it up in a science classroom - it doesn't pass the sniff test.

"Man from monkeys" is a v. old - & deliberately wrong - paraphrase of evolution.

Among the scientists who actually study climate as a career, there is global consensus on climate change.

Originally Posted by Commodore

It's an apt analogy.

With Perry in the role of Simplicus....

I knew Galileo...Galileo was a friend of mine...Ricky boy is no Galileo...

Originally Posted by hoosier88

(My emphasis)

If you discuss creationism in a classroom, it would have to be in a comparative religions classroom. There's no point in bringing it up in a science classroom - it doesn't pass the sniff test.

"Man from monkeys" is a v. old - & deliberately wrong - paraphrase of evolution.

In theory I completely agree - creationism is a religious discussion improper for the classroom. But you cannot print this image in every text book . . .

. . . and then tell the kids who have been taught creationism at church and home to sit down and shut up when asking questions. Public schools should not endorse any religion, but I also think they should not be allowed to promote atheist beliefs either.

Again, DNA technology has proven this above pictorial cannot be the case. At least, not unless, after evolving into man, the entire human population accept for one man and woman were completely wiped out around 100K years ago, and the human race started over. But that sounds way too much like a bible story, so we better ignore recent DNA analysis as well.

Among the scientists who actually study climate as a career, there is global consensus on climate change.

There is an ongoing, and well documented refusal by the scientific establishment to publish opposing science. Even despite any of that, there is no consensus in science. It only takes one to prove AGW wrong. This is just as difficult as proving AGW is happening, because in either case we have such a tiny set of data virtually meaningless in the scope of Earth's climate patterns - it is all just an educated guess.

Originally Posted by SupPackFan

Public schools should not endorse any religion, but I also think they should not be allowed to promote atheist beliefs either.

ahoy SupPackFan,

matey, lemme asks ye a question, okies?

first read this, if ye will;

Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures. Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors.

Most went extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of the extinct hominids known today, however, are almost certainly direct ancestors of Homo sapiens.

While the total number of species that existed and the relationships among them is still unknown, the picture becomes clearer as new fossils are found. Humans evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life on Earth.

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

do ye consider the above an atheistic belief?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy SupPackFan,

matey, lemme asks ye a question, okies?

first read this, if ye will;

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

do ye consider the above an atheistic belief?

- MeadHallPirate

I have not advocated baring any scientific information from the subject. I just don't want text books to skip over more recent discoveries since fully mapping DNA. For example: Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?

One of the downfalls of previous molecular genetic studies has been the limit at which chimpanzees and humans could be compared accurately. Scientists often would use only 30 or 40 known proteins or nucleic acid sequences, and then from those extrapolate their results for the entire genome. Today, however, we have the majority of the human genome sequences, practically all of which have been released and made public. This allows scientists to compare every single nucleotide base pair between humans and primates—something that was not possible prior to the human genome project. In January 2002, a study was published in which scientists had constructed and analyzed a first-generation human chimpanzee comparative genomic map. This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences to human genomic sequences. Fujiyama and colleagues “detected candidate positions, including two clusters on human chromosome 21, that suggest large, nonrandom regions of differences between the two genomes” (2002, 295:131). In other words, the comparison revealed some “large” differences between the genomes of chimps and humans.

Amazingly, the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences.

We know that the chimpanzee is our closest reletive, and DNA technology increasing at an exponential rate was expected to help prove paleontological evolution theories. But the opposite is happening, scientists are discovering vast differences to the point of disproving that theory:

Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist, I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message

In short, I just do not want public schools selectively sensoring recent discoveries (in the last decade) because they do not fit scientific consensus.

Originally Posted by SupPackFan

I have not advocated baring any scientific information from the subject. I just don't want text books to skip over more recent discoveries since fully mapping DNA. For example: Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?



We know that the chimpanzee is our closest reletive, and DNA technology increasing at an exponential rate was expected to help prove paleontological evolution theories. But the opposite is happening, scientists are discovering vast differences to the point of disproving that theory:



In short, I just do not want public schools selectively sensoring recent discoveries (in the last decade) because they do not fit scientific consensus.

Nothing has ever been found that has cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
Nothing!
Even if your source was true, it doesn't do anything to invalidate evolution, and your source is pretty shaky.

What children should be told in school, is that evolution is what happened, and the bible is just stories, but they are still free to believe in God.

Originally Posted by SupPackFan

In theory I completely agree - creationism is a religious discussion improper for the classroom. But you cannot print this image in every text book . . .

. . . and then tell the kids who have been taught creationism at church and home to sit down and shut up when asking questions. Public schools should not endorse any religion, but I also think they should not be allowed to promote atheist beliefs either.

Again, DNA technology has proven this above pictorial cannot be the case. At least, not unless, after evolving into man, the entire human population accept for one man and woman were completely wiped out around 100K years ago, and the human race started over. But that sounds way too much like a bible story, so we better ignore recent DNA analysis as well.


There is an ongoing, and well documented refusal by the scientific establishment to publish opposing science. Even despite any of that, there is no consensus in science. It only takes one to prove AGW wrong. This is just as difficult as proving AGW is happening, because in either case we have such a tiny set of data virtually meaningless in the scope of Earth's climate patterns - it is all just an educated guess.

(My emphasis)

1. The image you refer to was somebody's attempt to visualize an old mis-statement of evolution. That image was mistaken then, it's mistaken now, & should not appear in any modern discussion of evolution. Does it still appear in modern textbooks?
2. Agreed that public schools should not establish any religion. However, science doesn't have any tools to work on theological questions - & so the charge of promoting atheism is silly. Science doesn't have a religion, except perhaps rationality itself.
3. I'm not familiar with the DNA analysis you're referring to.
4. Is there a scientific establishment? There are various academies, international bodies, associations of various specialties in the physical sciences & so on. Which ones do you have in mind here?
5. There is a consensus of the hands-on practitioners of environmental/atmospheric/oceanographic science. They agree on a warming trend over time for the Earth caused by man. The issue is how much is due to human activity, how much AGW is inconvenient/dangerous to man, & what - if anything - to do about AGW.
6. You're last item is a neat trick - there's not enough data on AGW, & so there's nothing to work on. You have to decide - either #4 & #5 are real, or #6 is. You don't get to have it both ways. Pick one, please.

Originally Posted by hoosier88

(My emphasis)

1. The image you refer to was somebody's attempt to visualize an old mis-statement of evolution. That image was mistaken then, it's mistaken now, & should not appear in any modern discussion of evolution. Does it still appear in modern textbooks?

I think it was known to be wrong when they first published it, which makes it propaganda.

Originally Posted by hoosier

2. Agreed that public schools should not establish any religion. However, science doesn't have any tools to work on theological questions - & so the charge of promoting atheism is silly. Science doesn't have a religion, except perhaps rationality itself.

Public schools have no business establishing or de-establishing religion. They should also stay out of the propaganda business.

Originally Posted by hoosier

3. I'm not familiar with the DNA analysis you're referring to.

There are different ways to compare genomes. So how similar [or dissimilar] two genomes are is going to depend on what basis they are being compared. At any rate, that the chimp genome is similar to the human genome only proves that it is plausible that they share a common ancestor. The reason it is not direct evidence of common ancestry is because you can't rule out the possibility that they share a common designer.

Originally Posted by hoosier

4. Is there a scientific establishment? There are various academies, international bodies, associations of various specialties in the physical sciences & so on. Which ones do you have in mind here?

There is definitely a Darwinian establishment.

Originally Posted by hooiser

5. There is a consensus of the hands-on practitioners of environmental/atmospheric/oceanographic science. They agree on a warming trend over time for the Earth caused by man. The issue is how much is due to human activity, how much AGW is inconvenient/dangerous to man, & what - if anything - to do about AGW.

I think the AGW 'consensus' has proved to be a rhetorical device more than anything.

Originally Posted by SupPackFan

In theory I completely agree - creationism is a religious discussion improper for the classroom. But you cannot print this image in every text book . . .

. . . and then tell the kids who have been taught creationism at church and home to sit down and shut up when asking questions. Public schools should not endorse any religion, but I also think they should not be allowed to promote atheist beliefs either.

Again, DNA technology has proven this above pictorial cannot be the case. At least, not unless, after evolving into man, the entire human population accept for one man and woman were completely wiped out around 100K years ago, and the human race started over. But that sounds way too much like a bible story, so we better ignore recent DNA analysis as well.


There is an ongoing, and well documented refusal by the scientific establishment to publish opposing science. Even despite any of that, there is no consensus in science. It only takes one to prove AGW wrong. This is just as difficult as proving AGW is happening, because in either case we have such a tiny set of data virtually meaningless in the scope of Earth's climate patterns - it is all just an educated guess.

I haven't seen that illustration in a textbook for 50 years, and the human race WAS nearly wiped out around 74,000 years ago...mitochondrial DNA puts us to about 300 individuals at one point. (I think)