very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughing stock of the world

From: Rod-Lists 
------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Passes Bill That Allows "Teaching the Controversy" of Evolution
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/03/21/177221/tennessee-passes-bill-that-allows-teaching-the-controversy-of-evolution

=============================================================== From: Jason Brown ------------------------------------------------------ I have been trying not to think about that today lest I become physically ill. --Jason

=============================================================== From: David Della Vecchia ------------------------------------------------------ It's the first time since i moved here 2 years ago that I've been truly embarrassed to live in TN. -DDV

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ How do think those of us born here feel? But does beat the roadkill bill? Chugalug needs a 527 for technical & science issues! ----- Original Message ----- From: David Della Vecchia To: CHUGALUG Sent: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughing stock of the world It's the first time since i moved here 2 years ago that I've been truly embarrassed to live in TN. -DDV

=============================================================== From: Ashley Wilson ------------------------------------------------------ I was born here and as far as I can tell, this just permits the open discussion and debate of two conflicting schools of thought. Should students be taught what to think, or how to reason and evaluate the merits of opposing schools of thought? Sure, this will look like a religious usurpation of school curriculum when we read news articles... because simply granting latitude to teachers and students for what is up for debate in a classroom isn't very sensational. I haven't read the legislation, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

=============================================================== From: Stephen Haywood ------------------------------------------------------ So we are not allowed to question evolution, global warming, etc.? Questioning leads to discovery and new knowledge. Accepting the "facts" as presented leads to sheeple.

=============================================================== From: wes ------------------------------------------------------ some say 2+2=4. others say 2+2=5. you figure out which one is correct. do you believe we can teach our children to think by giving them conflicting information and letting them hash out what's correct for themselves? -wes

=============================================================== From: Dave Brockman ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 That would be true is this actually facilitated discussion and debate. I'm afraid that this will only decriminalize what it is already common behavior. Which is not teaching evolution, or mentioning it in passing because they are required to, right before they open their bible and explain how that evolution stuff is the in-bred notion of sinners... Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9qSuYACgkQABP1RO+tr2R3QACeIurSPoylLWNcjAvdhrvBDrIg V5cAoIuvgb9j0PV7Yyshzc4E07XybySz =YUlz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ The difference is 2+2=4 is verifiable. What happened millions or thousands of years ago, unobserved by humans, cannot be scientifically verified - either way. By definition, the scientific method cannot be applied to unobserved unrepeatable events like the Big Bang or Creation. We are left only with the results of the event, and can have theories and hypotheses about what happened, but we can never prove it, because no one was there to observe and record it, and it is not something that can be repeated. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to remove the teaching of the origin of the universe from science classes altogether, since it cannot be in that field of study to begin with. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Dave Brockman ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Unfortunately, every time something like this happens, this image of Rhea County protestors lined up chanting to protest the recent passage of legislation criminalizing homosexuality comes to my mind... "Gay Day in Rhea, Gay Day in Rhea" Just another great big ole WTF is all I have to say.... Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9qS+YACgkQABP1RO+tr2T9SQCfYHaLbzMXh5SWdTglc4yKL9Ox kDAAn1Y0eOirGoORvfeO56a5hq+xZrfE =9uCy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: wes ------------------------------------------------------ I agree about the difference, however the application is the same. There is a rather large amount of scientific data supporting the theory of evolution. There is one book written by some guy 2000 years ago supporting that other idea. What I like about science is that its community of supports is constantly questioning each other and challenging each other to prove what they believe. There is continuing development even in evolution science - evidence has been discovered recently that points to a kind of "horizontal evolution" where organisms would rip genetic codes directly from each other, across species, rather than vertically from their parents exclusively. If you try to challenge that other idea among its supporters, you are simply kicked out of that group. I'd rather be in the first group, even if they're wrong. They still have a chance to become right - the second group will be stuck where it is forever. -wes

=============================================================== From: Stephen Haywood ------------------------------------------------------ I know I'm going to pay for this but... I don't think evolution and global warming are as concrete as 2+2=4. -- Stephen Haywood Information Security Consultant CISSP, GPEN, OSCP T: @averagesecguy W: averagesecurityguy.info

=============================================================== From: Stephen Haywood ------------------------------------------------------ Completely agree.

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ So since we can't observe anything in history, should we stop teaching all forms of history? There's plenty of evidence that the universe is much older than most religions proclaim. Should we ignore evidence like that or should we try to build new understanding from that physical evidence? I'm not going to start a evolution vs intelligent design debate on the lug, and I suggest that we just save it for another forum. No one on one side is going convince anyone on the opposing side either way, and the results will only be flamewars.

=============================================================== From: "kitepilot@kitepilot.com" ------------------------------------------------------ Man, so far the best post on this (un-appropriate for this group) thread... ET Randy Yates writes:

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ I simply said it's not science, and should not be taught as such. History isn't science. It's history. The origin of the universe is philosophy or religion or creative writing - but it's not science. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ We could spend all night arguing that, and we wouldn't get anywhere. I'll just say that I completely disagree with you. If you want the last word, you can tell me you disagree with me too. It'll at least end it.

=============================================================== From: Mike Harrison ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/21/south-carolina-teacher-suspended-for-reading-students-enders-game-will-not-face-criminal-charges/ Almost as bad as the teacher reading un-approved material to kids....

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: wes To: CHUGALUG Sent: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughing stock of the world I agree about the difference, however the application is the same. There is a rather large amount of scientific data supporting the theory of evolution. There is one book written by some guy 2000 years ago supporting that other idea. ========================= Actually there is nothing in the bible that contradicts evolution or supports creationism. There are many christians who are evolutionists. Only if you are a strict literal interpretationalist do have problem with evolution. But then again you also have problems with the Song of Soloman and the fact that Genesis chapter 1 doesn't quite jive with Genesis chapter 2.

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ Since when is the standard model not science? String theory I can give that. But the Standard model? ----- Original Message ----- From: Chad Smith To: CHUGALUG Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughing stock of the world I simply said it's not science, and should not be taught as such. History isn't science. It's history. The origin of the universe is philosophy or religion or creative writing - but it's not science. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Dan Lyke ------------------------------------------------------ On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:53:25 -0700 wes wrote: There are also a substantial number of processes used in creating modern medicine, food, and other chemistry which used fairly advanced theories of evolution in their development. Theories exist to support the development of new hypotheses and new processes. A theory has value only so long as it helps to understand and guide our efforts to make sense of reality. As a class of theories, the ones surrounding the concept of evolution are doing pretty well on that front. Dan

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ Science is there to help us systematically guess as to the function of something in nature and subsequently test those assumptions. I can say that the sky on the moon is purple and the scientific method provides me a way to test that asinine assumption. I use this silly example to point out that by testing crazy assumptions we might actually find the truth of the matter inadvertently. I am against any school forcefully closing the minds of my children based on the religious beliefs of others. We are not simple mammal and as such should be able to openly discuss and develop our own opinions, especially in schools. -AW

=============================================================== From: Ryan Harrell ------------------------------------------------------ I think open discussion is good in all forms. I'm not sure why anyone is so worried. Are they afraid evolution won't stand up to scrutiny? I think we should challenge all theories to prove that they stand up to scrutiny. And yes, I think 2+2=4 is infinitely verifiable and children are plenty capable enough of figuring that out based on evidence that is readily available. Why shouldn't the same apply to anything else? I think children should be allowed to verify for themselves based upon available evidence. No theory can perfectly explain everything and understanding the details of what a theory can and can't explain is important. Understanding the interplay and the possible solutions to the problems creates a well rounded understanding of the topic. Making something "Unquestionable" is dangerous. --- Ryan Harrell 423-313-6405 www.ryanfreelance.com

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ I keep telling myself to shut up and not answer this thread, but it's too hard to resist. Mainly because I have kids, and I don't want them taught nonsense in school. The problem with introducing the "intelligent design" theory into school is that it has already been debated over and over and over. The point to intelligent design is to add a creator or designer to the beginning of things, which is religious. Intelligent design is a religious belief and doesn't belong in a science class because there is no physical evidence one way or the other of an intelligent designer. There are mountains of evidence to prove natural selection and evolution has occurred. It's impossible to debate it with anyone who believes otherwise because eventually, after you prove them wrong about their evidence for intelligent design or creation, you'll end up with "it's not meant for us to understand it" as a reply, which is a complete contradiction of the scientific method. The arguments almost always end or involve that type of phrase, so it's a pointless argument. Most of us would just shut up about it if you weren't trying to force a religion down our kids' throats before they really develop a skeptical mind. It's easier to convince kids of something and get it ingrained into their mind at an early age. I don't want religion taught in science. Science is important for finding truths in nature. Religion tells you it's version of the truth and requires you to go by it and have faith that it is correct. This part is not compatible with science. When science teachers teach about evolution, they never say "agree with this or you'll go to hell". Any time I hear a scientist talk about something new, they usually start off with, "from our observations of the evidence" or "we can postulate that this happens because...". They don't usually deal with absolutes. They calculate their margin of error. They know by what percentage they can be wrong. Through this method, however, we've made great leaps in technology. Also, most of the teachers in this area are religious. They already discount evolution privately in their classroom with subtle remarks. Do you think they will not teach intelligent design as fact, once they are given the opportunity?

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ +1. I am there with you. This is one of the reasons I have doubts about sending my children to a private Christian school. They are way better than the public schools where we live, but teaching ID in science class would tip the scales in my opinion. -AW

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ Yeah you don't here "Believe in evolution or go to hell" - but you do hear "Believe what we scientist say, or you're an idiot / in-bred / crazy / illogical / superstitious / etc." You know - like this thread. You cannot logically apply the scientific method to events that are unobserved and non-repeatable. Even the Big Bang doesn't answer the question of First Cause. Where did that dot of everything come from? Was it 2 p-branes of other universes bumping into each other? Ok - where did they come from? 2 other dots of everything? Which came from 2 other p-branes each, which came from 4 other dots of everything...... And whenever I hear an explanation of the origin of everything - they always get to a point where they say "Well at this point, the laws of physics break down, and we aren't exactly sure what happened here....." That's faith. "We don't know what happened, but we are 100% sure that it *DID* happen. and you believe otherwise, you're an idiot religious nutjob!" The idea of simply focusing on the FACTS - the stuff we KNOW happened because we can observe them - test them - repeat the results. That's science. That's what we should be teaching our kids. The scientific method and chemistry and physics and mechanics and biology. The origin of the universe doesn't even need to come up. if you can't come up with 180 hours of stuff to teach about science aside from theories about the origins of the universe - you shouldn't be teaching science. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ Holy hell this thread got deep...quick. :) I would consider myself to be a deist, and I do tend to follow intelligent design. Simply because for me, it helps bridge the gap between what we know as science, and what we don't know as religion. As some of you may know, I am a Freemason, and morality and spirituality are a big part of Masonic teachings. When I read about intelligent design, it immediately struck a chord with me, as it offered an elegant "compromise" to what the scientist in me knew as fact, and what the spiritual being in me knew as religion. But, to make my point in this thread, I agree with Randy that religious aspects or intelligent design should not be be taught in schools. I don't have kids, but I would assume that my job as a parent would be to teach my kids what I wanted them to know of morality, and the schools job would be to teach them the arts and sciences. The school should be a safe, non-biased place for kids to be taught proper science and theories, and my job as a parent would be to build their moral compasses. Anyways, thats just my .$02 BTW, is there a Ubuntu Intelligent Design edition? :P

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ The origin of the universe is still a mystery, and it should be investigated further. The best theory at the moment is the big bang because of the observable expanding universe. Running the expansion in reverse yields a time when the universe was highly compacted. Scientist are still studying various avenues here. However, mixing that up with the teaching of evolution is wrong. Evolution and the origin of species on this planet is heavily backed by FACTS. It's the basis for most of modern biology. Intelligent Design comes in as an explanation of the very beginning of life. Intelligent design doesn't contradict evolution. It applies a reason for the beginning. Which is what you just preached against not wanting taught in school, Chad.

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ I never said I wanted Intelligent Design taught in science class. I said I wanted no origin story to be taught in science class. And no, evolution is not a FACT. It is still a theory. An unobserved untestable theory. You can't force evolution in a lab, therefore it is unrepeatable. Ergo - not science. Again, there is so much more that could be taught that doesn't need to mention or allude to the Beginning that you could teach a student K-12 without even bringing it up. Philosophy class, religion class, literature class, creative writing, etc. - you can discuss unprovable theories about the origins of everything there all you want. But it simply isn't science. It was not observed (unless you count God as an observer, then you would have to trust His report on the matter), and it cannot be tested or repeated. It is completely outside of the scientific method. Leave it out of science class. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ Artificial selection gives good evidence for natural selection. There are fossils which allow us to observe what happened. We have good dating techniques. A "theory" is a statement based upon many observable facts. It summarizes what has been observed. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory Again, this is why I hate getting into one of these debates. It's always the same arguments. If you won't look up the word theory and find out what it actually means, how am I supposed to teach you science.

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ I never asked you to teach me anything. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Dee Holtsclaw ------------------------------------------------------ I've been trying to bite my tongue as well (and obviously failed). My daughter had to deal with mandatory prayer in her elementary school until that principal retired. I ended up having to avoid the campus because of my "blasphemous nature" (his words) ... funny how I got along exceedingly well with the new (non-bible-thumping) principal that replaced him. Thing is, the prayer itself wasn't my problem. I'd had it myself back when I was in school (you could get suspended for "sacrilegious behavior" then too). But he shouldn't have punished those that chose not to participate nor risk wasting my tax dollars on a lawsuit should someone have pushed it to that. Even now my son has to be careful in his high school since there are both students and faculty whom actively persecute anyone that's a "non believer". Back when my daughter was there, she was refused permission to leave for an appointment to the health department. The school's attendance officer actually called me and gave me an earful, screaming in front of everyone there, about my daughter getting birth control (as if it was any of her business in the first place). She said my daughter wouldn't be doing it if I had her in church and that I was responsible for her going to hell. If she had been the youngest, I might have actually pressed charges on that one. So, yes, it's a problem throughout the state and I don't see that changing any time soon. Especially given the widespread indoctrination still prevalent in many school systems. My favorite bait for ID folks is to get them to state that we are the way we are since "God designed us" (usually doesn't take long). Then, since "God" is supposed to be infallible, I ask why we have a blind spot in our vision. The reply, if there is one, is usually something along the lines of "because it was the best way to do it" (having the optic nerve connected on the retinal front). I counter with the fact that an octopus doesn't have a blind spot since their optic nerve is connected to the rear. And at this point they usually get angry, call me a heathen and tell me I'm going to hell.

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ BTW - the link provided has this definition for the word "Theory" - "an unproved assumption" as well as "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation". *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ I think you may have the ID folks confused with theists Dee. ID doesn't say that man was directly created in Gods image, or that we were designed a specific way from the beginning. That's typically what the theists believe. Generally speaking, ID people believe that a designer started the wheels of creation turning, and then let nature control where it went.

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ Yes and evolution is a scientific theory, which is the the main/first definition. If I say "in theory I can jump and fly if I drink Monster energy", then I'm using definition of the word. If I say "Newton's theory of gravity prevents me from jumping off the planet", then I'm using it in the same context as the "theory of evolution."

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ Gravity *was* a theory at one time - now it is a law, modified with better understanding of physics, but a law nonetheless. That's how science works. Someone observes nature - records their findings and comes up with an idea of why things happened that way - they then test it and see if their ideas were right. Gravity was observed, then explained, then tested. And now it can be tested over and over again and the results are the same. Evolution was a theory a couple hundred years ago, and despite the fevered efforts of thousands of believers, it is still just a theory. It cannot be proven. It has not - and can not - be repeated, mostly because it has never even been observed. A Poodle and a Pitbull having a baby that looks different than them isn't evolution - it's simple genetics, and other than a few mutations - that are always harmful or inert, like red hair or Downs Syndrome - there has never been one thing turning into another thing. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ Wow. Not even sure how to respond. But I think you just proved and then disproved your own point, all in one paragraph.

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ This is a good overview of evolution being a fact in one aspect and a theory in another. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html -AW

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ Evolution is a scientific theory that has stood for 150+ years and it has been scrutinized probably more than any other scientific theory. Yet, it is the basis for all our understanding of genetics. The domestication of many animals through artificial selection has happened. Wolves became dogs through our selection. Natural selection works the same way on a longer time frame. It can be repeated through our own artificial selection. The only people who don't view natural selection and evolution as common-sense answers these days are those who have been indoctrinated into a religion that contradicts these ideas with baseless assertions of their own. I'd also like to point out, again, that intelligent design advocates generally agree with natural selection. ID only tries to add that at the beginning there was a designer, which is something that we definitely can't prove or disprove at this point, because there's not enough evidence either way. Teaching that in school isn't a good idea because it has no backing scientifically. However, you don't seem to be arguing the viewpoint of the ID crowd. You are saying that you don't believe or agree with natural selection. Natural selection has been scrutinized for over 150 years and it has held as an overwhelmingly true theory. It happened. We can duplicate it with artificial selection, which is the only way anyone could possible duplicate a process like that, since it takes many thousands of years on its own. We can observe it in the fossil record.

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ Let's get something clear. Theory is a word from academia. And in that realm it has a much stronger meaning than in common parlance. A Theory is arguably better than a Law of Science. Example Newtons Law Gravity describes what gravity does(imperfectly) but not why. Einsteins Theory of Relativity describes what Gravity does and why it works the way it does. The general public uses the word theory when we should use hypothesis. As to the statement Evolution is not a fact. My response is Zeuglodon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus Evolution makes predictions that can be tested by observations and has strong track record in regard. ----- Original Message ----- From: Chad Smith And no, evolution is not a FACT. It is still a theory. An unobserved untestable theory. You can't force evolution in a lab, therefore it is unrepeatable. Ergo - not science.

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ And I submit the giraffe laryngeal nerve. Some of you may be put off because the video has Richard Dawkins (aka the anti-christ to some probably) in it, but it does show a curious example of evolution through natural selection. The only argument I've heard to the question of "why does the giraffe's laryngeal nerve go down it's long neck and wrap around its heart before coming back up to the larynx?" is that it's not meant for us to understand God's ways. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ Had not heard of that. I want to know how ID explains cetaceans or the false thumb on the Panda Bear. ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy Yates To: CHUGALUG Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughing stock of the world And I submit the giraffe laryngeal nerve. Some of you may be put off because the video has Richard Dawkins (aka the anti-christ to some probably) in it, but it does show a curious example of evolution through natural selection. The only argument I've heard to the question of "why does the giraffe's laryngeal nerve go down it's long neck and wrap around its heart before coming back up to the larynx?" is that it's not meant for us to understand God's ways. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ Again, I think you are heavily confusing ID with theists. I follow ID, so my response would be that it was a mutation from evolution, or a result of evolution in some sort of way. ID believers simply think that a creator sparked life, and then nature (natural selection, evolution, etc) is what is responsible for the diversity of life on the earth. ID sides more with deistic beliefs more than theistic beliefs. There is a HUGE difference in these. Please learn them before making accusations. Theists would argue that it was God's way and he created them this way simply because he wanted to. Please, before everyone starts giving Intelligent Design a false stigma, read up on the differences between Theists, Deists, agnostics, atheists, and Intelligent Design.

=============================================================== From: William Wade ------------------------------------------------------ I have also heard from some theist programmers regarding common DNA, thumbs, etc... that perhaps God is just object-oriented. :D

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ You may interpret as a deist system but not all supporters do. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn Dixon To: CHUGALUG Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughing stock of the world Again, I think you are heavily confusing ID with theists. I follow ID, so my response would be that it was a mutation from evolution, or a result of evolution in some sort of way. ID believers simply think that a creator sparked life, and then nature (natural selection, evolution, etc) is what is responsible for the diversity of life on the earth. ID sides more with deistic beliefs more than theistic beliefs. There is a HUGE difference in these. Please learn them before making accusations. Theists would argue that it was God's way and he created them this way simply because he wanted to. Please, before everyone starts giving Intelligent Design a false stigma, read up on the differences between Theists, Deists, agnostics, atheists, and Intelligent Design.

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ Oh I love the OOP response whether I agree with its basis or not. It's a good comeback nevertheless.

=============================================================== From: Charles Leeds ------------------------------------------------------ I think the distinction you are making is between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I believe God created the earth in seven days. I believe in micro-evolution. Creation cannot be proved because no one alive was here to witness God create the earth. Macro-evolution cannot be proved because no one has lived long enough to see one major species evolve into another. They are both theories. People should be free to interpret the evidence as they want.

=============================================================== From: Dee Holtsclaw ------------------------------------------------------ I've always labeled myself Agnostic. For no other reason than I have no "proof" either way. There was a talk on some show I saw where they argued that all Agnostics are, in fact, also Atheists -- on the grounds that the terms answered different questions. Their argument was an "atheist" being someone that "does not believe in God", answers the question "Do you believe in God?" (i.e. no) whereas an "agnostic" being someone that "does not know whether God exists or not", answers the question "Does God exist?" With this interpretation then, someone that will not commit to God's existence could not also "believe" in God thus Atheist. Be that as it may, most people expousing "ID" are simply using it as a means of justifying their blind faith as (they think) "science". You are, quite literally, the first person I have ever heard refer to ID in a this manner and I respect you for that. P.S. I would also submit that the "Big Bang Theory" is an outrageously funny show.

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ What fossils & radiocarbon dating? ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Leeds To: CHUGALUG Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:41:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughing stock of the world I think the distinction you are making is between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I believe God created the earth in seven days. I believe in micro-evolution. Creation cannot be proved because no one alive was here to witness God create the earth. Macro-evolution cannot be proved because no one has lived long enough to see one major species evolve into another. They are both theories. People should be free to interpret the evidence as they want.

=============================================================== From: Lynn Dixon ------------------------------------------------------ Wow, Thanks for that Dee! The simplest way to describe my interpretation of ID is this: I am both very logical thinker and scientific minded person. I am also somewhat faith guided, and I use faith as a sort of moral compass. I do follow Christian beliefs, but I understand these teachings are philisophical, and not pure fact always. When I learned of ID, it was the perfect way for me to internalize both frames of mind. For me, its the perfect bridge between what we can measure with science, and what we cant measure with faith. They should not cancel each other out, but should really supplement each other. When I try to comprehend the shear scale and beauty of the universe, I understand we can measure much of it, but I also find comfort in the fact that no matter how finite we are in our sciences, there is always something more infinite for us to discover, that is the essence of a Creator for me. I also practice theistic beliefs in that this creator set forth certain basic natural laws (like gravity and energy, etc) and left the processes to build themselves. I dont believe that this "creator" has a set plan from alpha to omega with all the details laid out, I believe that the creator simply created alpha, and lets nature find its way to gamma. This not only applies to the creatures, but also the matter, planets, space-time, dimensions, strings, membranes, or what ever else is out there. Its a shame that alot of religious fanatics have latched onto ID and proclaimed it as "God's science", which it truly is not. Now, if anyone thinks that I am a quack for believing this way, so mote it be.

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ I can understand that. On some days I'm close to that way thinking. But I think the distinction between micro & macro evolution are just silly. At this point we can't say if the big bang was due colliding branes or Ra's(or Atum) hand of god bit. Yes according to one egyptian creation myth(and there were many) a solar deity created the universe by committed the sin of Onan. Hence one the titles of the Queen of Egypt was The Hand of God since she and Pharaoh had to re-enact this act on a religious holiday to maintain Maat(the cosmic order). Must be good to be King. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn Dixon To: CHUGALUG Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:13:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughing stock of the world Wow, Thanks for that Dee! The simplest way to describe my interpretation of ID is this: I am both very logical thinker and scientific minded person. I am also somewhat faith guided, and I use faith as a sort of moral compass. I do follow Christian beliefs, but I understand these teachings are philisophical, and not pure fact always. When I learned of ID, it was the perfect way for me to internalize both frames of mind. For me, its the perfect bridge between what we can measure with science, and what we cant measure with faith. They should not cancel each other out, but should really supplement each other. When I try to comprehend the shear scale and beauty of the universe, I understand we can measure much of it, but I also find comfort in the fact that no matter how finite we are in our sciences, there is always something more infinite for us to discover, that is the essence of a Creator for me. I also practice theistic beliefs in that this creator set forth certain basic natural laws (like gravity and energy, etc) and left the processes to build themselves. I dont believe that this "creator" has a set plan from alpha to omega with all the details laid out, I believe that the creator simply created alpha, and lets nature find its way to gamma. This not only applies to the creatures, but also the matter, planets, space-time, dimensions, strings, membranes, or what ever else is out there. Its a shame that alot of religious fanatics have latched onto ID and proclaimed it as "God's science", which it truly is not. Now, if anyone thinks that I am a quack for believing this way, so mote it be.

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ It's highly flawed and not accurate. Radiocarbon dating has been used to "prove" a *LIVING* mullosk *DIED* 300,000 years ago. We have no idea if half-lives truly date into the thousands or millions of years, because no one has observed them for that long. Every so often you heard about scientists discovering an animal in the middle of nowhere that supposedly went extinct millions of years ago. If that's not enough to get you to question the accuracy of their claims, I don't know what is. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ *Mute* Chad. Besides that I am enjoying the discussion. (Sorry, to flat out deny that proven scientific methods work tests my patien= ce for BS. Post facts to prove your point and I will "unmute" you.) -AW prove" a *LIVING* mullosk *DIED* 300,000 years ago. years, because no one has observed them for that long. dle of nowhere that supposedly went extinct millions of years ago. don't know what is. ing stock of the world

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ In 1984 Alan Riggs with the U. S. Geological Survey, published a paper in The American Association for the Advancement of Science=92s journal, Scienc= e, which reported that a live snail from an artesian spring in Nevada was found by radiocarbon dating to be 27,000 years old. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya ) f

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ Major Carbon-14 Deficiency in Modern Snail Shells from Southern Nevada Springs Alan Riggs Science April 6, 1984: pages 58-61. DOI:10.1126/science.224.4644.58 * - Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya nce, : .) o , t

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ Ah you mean snails which have shells made of dead material, which can be carbon dated as being very old. -- Google reads my email!

=============================================================== From: Ashley Wilson ------------------------------------------------------ I theorize that it was an heirloom shell, passed down through many generations of proud snails. :)

=============================================================== From: Christopher Rimondi ------------------------------------------------------ On the relationship between faith and science... I am a Christian who considers it a privilege to teach his children with an inspired Bible and a hope of salvation in Jesus Christ It should not be assumed that science has the market cornered on the discovery of truth or that science can somehow stand on its own without assumptions that cannot be proved in an empirical way. There are many metaphysical assumptions necessary for science to work properly such as the reality of an objective external world in contrast to a world of illusion, the reliability of memory, continuing personal identity over time, the reliability of cause-and-effect relationships, etc... Consider what David Hume (certainly not a friend of Christianity or any other religion) said about cause-and-effect relationships. He pointed out that it is impossible through empirical investigation to establish causal relationships because we can't hear, touch, taste, feel or see causality. At best all we see is subsequent events. Hume also pointed out the difficulties with induction which is necessary for science to function. You need to assume (read have faith) that the future will be like the past. This assumption cannot be proven via sensory perception because you can't test the future. Deduction is not without its problems as well. As it turns out its equally difficult to anchor deductive reasoning into the physical world. Non-euclidean geometry is great example of this. You have pure math which says "we don't care if mathematics applies to the outside world as long as it is internally consistent" and applied math which says "we don't care if mathematics is internally consistent as long as it solves our real-world problems (Yes, I realize I am taking some license in that description but, I think it captures the essence of the divide). All that being said, I believe science can discover truth but not without a relying on "religious" commitments. I have enjoyed this thread even if it is on a Lug list :)

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ come on Chad if radiocarbon dating was that flawed then quantum mechanics would be flawed and the electronics which we are using to communicate would not work. Most of the radiocarbon issues are precision errors but not even the result you cited is possible. ----- Original Message ----- From: Chad Smith To: CHUGALUG Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughing stock of the world It's highly flawed and not accurate. Radiocarbon dating has been used to "prove" a *LIVING* mullosk *DIED* 300,000 years ago. We have no idea if half-lives truly date into the thousands or millions of years, because no one has observed them for that long. Every so often you heard about scientists discovering an animal in the middle of nowhere that supposedly went extinct millions of years ago. If that's not enough to get you to question the accuracy of their claims, I don't know what is. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Chad Smith ------------------------------------------------------ I provided a reference to the source material - a trusted, peer-reviewed scientific journal that had been around for over 100 years. A living snail was "dated" as being 27,000 years old. Coelacanths, which supposedly went extinct over 60 million years ago are still found living off the coast of Madagascar. These are facts. You can google them yourself. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Randy Yates ------------------------------------------------------ You can also find out why both of these statements aren't proof of flawed radiocarbon dating if you google it yourself. The snail's shell was the problem in the 27,000 year old dating. Scientists know why it happened, and they factor that into their dating procedures. The issue with the Coelacanths doesn't disprove evolution. In the statement you've only said that some scientists were wrong about something. At least they admit when they are wrong and you prove them wrong. The species found was a modern-day version and wasn't an exact match of the fossils. It actually supported evolution.

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ So an isolated population is re-discovered and that disprove evolution? There some very successful species that have changed very little. So what is your point? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chad Smith" To: "CHUGALUG" Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:08:18 AM Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughing stock of the world I provided a reference to the source material - a trusted, peer-reviewed scientific journal that had been around for over 100 years. A living snail was "dated" as being 27,000 years old. Coelacanths, which supposedly went extinct over 60 million years ago are still found living off the coast of Madagascar. These are facts. You can google them yourself. - Chad W. Smith "I like a man who's middle name is W." President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya come on Chad if radiocarbon dating was that flawed then quantum mechanics would be flawed and the electronics which we are using to communicate would not work. Most of the radiocarbon issues are precision errors but not even the result you cited is possible. ----- Original Message ----- From: Chad Smith < chad78@gmail.com > To: CHUGALUG < chugalug@chugalug.org > Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughing stock of the world It's highly flawed and not accurate. Radiocarbon dating has been used to "prove" a *LIVING* mullosk *DIED* 300,000 years ago. We have no idea if half-lives truly date into the thousands or millions of years, because no one has observed them for that long. Every so often you heard about scientists discovering an animal in the middle of nowhere that supposedly went extinct millions of years ago. If that's not enough to get you to question the accuracy of their claims, I don't know what is. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ not finding original citation or follow up. Just a lot of religious sites citing it without links. I dig some more later. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chad Smith" To: "CHUGALUG" Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:30:26 PM Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughi= ng stock of the world In 1984 Alan Riggs with the U. S. Geological Survey, published a paper in T= he American Association for the Advancement of Science=E2=80=99s journal, S= cience, which reported that a live snail from an artesian spring in Nevada = was found by radiocarbon dating to be 27,000 years old. - Chad W. Smith "I like a man who's middle name is W." President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Aaron Welch < n2nightfall@gmail.com > wrot= e: *Mute* Chad. Besides that I am enjoying the discussion. (Sorry, to flat out deny that proven scientific methods work tests my patie= nce for BS. Post facts to prove your point and I will "unmute" you.) -AW It's highly flawed and not accurate. Radiocarbon dating has been used to "p= rove" a *LIVING* mullosk *DIED* 300,000 years ago. We have no idea if half-lives truly date into the thousands or millions of = years, because no one has observed them for that long. Every so often you heard about scientists discovering an animal in the midd= le of nowhere that supposedly went extinct millions of years ago. If that's not enough to get you to question the accuracy of their claims, I= don't know what is. - Chad W. Smith "I like a man who's middle name is W." President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya What fossils & radiocarbon dating? ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Leeds < charlesleeds@rowdyrhino.com > To: CHUGALUG < chugalug@chugalug.org > Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:41:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughi= ng stock of the world I think the distinction you are making is between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I believe God created the earth in seven days. I believe in micro-evolution. Creation cannot be proved because no one alive was here to witness God create the earth. Macro-evolution cannot be proved because no one has lived long enough to see one major species evolve into another. They are both theories. People should be free to interpret the evidence as they want.

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/224/4644/58.abstract rn (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoid= es tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attribute= d to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotop= e equilibrium. Recognition of the existence of such extreme deficiencies is= necessary so that erroneous ages are not attributed to freshwater biogenic= carbonates. So in other words there is a radical in water interacting with carbon-14 in= the shell. The dude was saying be careful about this it could throw your data off if n= ot taken into account. Please proceed with the conspiracy theory. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chad Smith" To: "CHUGALUG" Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:08:18 AM Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughi= ng stock of the world I provided a reference to the source material - a trusted, peer-reviewed sc= ientific journal that had been around for over 100 years. A living snail wa= s "dated" as being 27,000 years old. Coelacanths, which supposedly went extinct over 60 million years ago are st= ill found living off the coast of Madagascar. These are facts. You can google them yourself. - Chad W. Smith "I like a man who's middle name is W." President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya come on Chad if radiocarbon dating was that flawed then quantum mechanics w= ould be flawed and the electronics which we are using to communicate would = not work. Most of the radiocarbon issues are precision errors but not even the result= you cited is possible. ----- Original Message ----- From: Chad Smith < chad78@gmail.com > To: CHUGALUG < chugalug@chugalug.org > Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Chugalug] very OT: Thank YOU BO Watson 4 making TN the laughi= ng stock of the world It's highly flawed and not accurate. Radiocarbon dating has been used to "prove" a *LIVING* mullosk *DIED* 300,000 years ago. We have no idea if half-lives truly date into the thousands or millions of = years, because no one has observed them for that long. Every so often you heard about scientists discovering an animal in the middle of nowhere that supposedly went extinct millions of years ago. If that's not enough to get you to question the accuracy of their claims, I= don't know what is. *- Chad W. Smith* *"I like a man who's middle name is W."* President George W. Bush - February 10, 2003 bit.ly/gwb-dubya

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ And the win goes to Rod! -AW odern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melano= ides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attribut= ed to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotop= e equilibrium. Recognition of the existence of such extreme deficiencies is n= ecessary so that erroneous ages are not attributed to freshwater biogenic ca= rbonates. n the shell. ot taken into account. ing stock of the world cientific journal that had been around for over 100 years. A living snail wa= s "dated" as being 27,000 years old.=20 till found living off the coast of Madagascar.=20 ould be flawed and the electronics which we are using to communicate would n= ot work.=20 t you cited is possible.=20 ing stock of the world=20 =20 =20