Originally Posted by owedtojoy

I know enough to know it is an unscientific religious dogma. What more do you want?

For example, in the landmark Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case , the judge ( a Bush appointee) found against the school board who tried to introduce Intelligent Design into the school curriculum.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So ID is ok for the poor who can't afford private schools, and have to suffer in the lousy system provided by your great Governor Perry? You're a real Republican snob alright.



Nothing in science is ever proven conclusively. All the scientists can tell you is that in the empirical instances records this happened and it was in accord with scientific theory. Such is the the case for both evolution and climate science. For a President to go against every scientific academy in the world, plus the advice of every Government scientist in NASA & the NOAA, plus the cream of academia from Harvard, Princeton (you name it ...) in favour of a handful of cranks, even cranks with a lot of fossil fuel money, would render him or her unfit to be elected to office.

But you're the one with the vote. Waste in on cranks and pseudo-scientists if that is your inclination.

PS You know parts of Texas are suffering their worst drought ever recorded? And you are not putting two-and-two together? And Governor Perry's "prayers for rain" did a fat lot of good, didn't they? Texas Drought: Where Is It “Worst”? | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog

You know enough ... well no you don't, and saying so is no more than arrogance.
Public education at high school level is appalling, the fault of teacher unions who put their member's interests over the interests of the children they are supposed to be educating. My penchant for private education comes more from my libertarian ideals.
You keep going on about all the scientists that seem to go against Perry without even knowing what Perry says on the subject. Oh, i'm sure you have read a few soundbites and you hate him because he is a Republican (very rational) and you trust scientists because they are known never to falsify or manipulate figures and never have any cognitive biases ... And so on. The human effect on climate change has not been proven conclusively, deal with it.
As for the jibe at Perry's calls for prayers. It actually has rained in Texas in the last week, according to your own metric that proves that the prayers worked.

Originally Posted by liamfoley

You know enough ... well no you don't, and saying so is no more than arrogance.

I have researched the subject. Try The Tower of Babel; The Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert Pennock published by MIT Press, among others. It is you who are being arrogant because you seem to have never opened a book on the subject ,yet seem to consider yourself qualified to say who knows what.

You keep going on about all the scientists that seem to go against Perry without even knowing what Perry says on the subject. Oh, i'm sure you have read a few soundbites and you hate him because he is a Republican (very rational) and you trust scientists because they are known never to falsify or manipulate figures and never have any cognitive biases ... And so on. The human effect on climate change has not been proven conclusively, deal with it.

We know enough about climate to know that human released CO2 is causing to planet to warm. And that is something we all have to deal with.

I notice you seem incapable of citing any supporting evidence for your position, as I have cited for mine. Which leaves you without a case.

As for the jibe at Perry's calls for prayers. It actually has rained in Texas in the last week, according to your own metric that proves that the prayers worked.

Sufficient to end the drought? The link I posted was to the site of the Texas State Climatologist. He does not seem to think the Texas Drought is over. Even if it ended tomorrow, it is still the longest and worst drought in Texas history. And there are more to come. But keep praying as per governor Perry's instructions.

Huntsman doubles down:

TAPPER: These comments from Governor Perry prompted you to Tweet, quote: "To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Were you just being cheeky or do you think there's a serious problem with what Governor Perry said?

HUNTSMAN: I think there's a serious problem. The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party - the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science - Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.

The Republican Party has to remember that we're drawing from traditions that go back as far as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, President Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush. And we've got a lot of traditions to draw upon. But I can't remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a - a party that - that was antithetical to science. I'm not sure that's good for our future and it's not a winning formula.

Apparently, the interview is to air tomorrow. You can only applaud Huntsman's courage and character to take on the entrenched Tea Party wing of the party.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/08/w...ms-rabett.html

More on Huffpost.

I am glad the anti-science message of the Tea Party is getting an airing. A lot depends on whether the mass media run with it or not.

Huntsman slammed Perry for expressing skepticism about manmade global warming and for criticizing the nation's central banker. "I think when you find yourself at an extreme end of the Republican Party, you make yourself unelectable," Huntsman said in interview, aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

Huntsman also ridiculed Bachmann's claims that she could bring gasoline prices below $2 if elected president. "I just don't know what world that comment would come from. ... That is completely unrealistic. And, again, it's talking about things that, you know, may pander to a particular group or sound good at the time, but it just simply is not founded in reality."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_932399.html

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

More on Huffpost.

I am glad the anti-science message of the Tea Party is getting an airing. A lot depends on whether the mass media run with it or not.



Jon Huntsman Blasts 2012 GOP Candidates On ABC's 'This Week'

Yes, a lot does depend on the propagandists, aye?

Originally Posted by Mossy Heneberry

Yes, a lot does depend on the propagandists, aye?

You're not calling the mass media (gasp!) propagandists, are you? Like, Fox News tell us they are "fair and balanced", and they don't lie do they ?

I just hope the message that there are rational alternatives to the pseudo-scientific crazies gets to the general public.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

I have researched the subject. Try The Tower of Babel; The Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert Pennock published by MIT Press, among others. It is you who are being arrogant because you seem to have never opened a book on the subject ,yet seem to consider yourself qualified to say who knows what.



We know enough about climate to know that human released CO2 is causing to planet to warm. And that is something we all have to deal with.

I notice you seem incapable of citing any supporting evidence for your position, as I have cited for mine. Which leaves you without a case.


Sufficient to end the drought? The link I posted was to the site of the Texas State Climatologist. He does not seem to think the Texas Drought is over. Even if it ended tomorrow, it is still the longest and worst drought in Texas history. And there are more to come. But keep praying as per governor Perry's instructions.

One book? That many? Wow, I'm impressed. I don't consider myself qualified by the way. I just like to point out to other unqualified people that they are not infallible.
You have embraced the human hating CO2 cause of warming while ignoring past cycles. Plenty of threads to debate that one. I find it amazing that otherwise rational people close their minds to this debate.
Droughts take time to end, but you keep faith in your drought. As for Perry's instructions to pray I don't take my spiritual leadership from Perry. I don't even think him the best candidate.

Originally Posted by liamfoley

You see there you go again you seem to feel it necessary to lecture me about evolution and genetics because you assume to think I don't believe in it. I will say again you do not seem to know what Creationists think or teach. You have fallen into the trap of thinking that there is some creationist creed that all people who describe themselves as creationists hold to. I wouldn't worry about that to a large extent your prejudice is fed by media you consume.

Why don't you just explain what creationalism is, if it isn't that god created the world in 6 days as per the bible. You keep on saying "you don't know what it is", it would be better if you explained it then.

Originally Posted by liamfoley

One book? That many? Wow, I'm impressed. I don't consider myself qualified by the way. I just like to point out to other unqualified people that they are not infallible.

It is one among many I have read on on evolution, and still one more than you have read, or at least you cite no books to support your case. Pennock gave evidence at the milestone Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board case, so his work is now part of the the legal judgment that creationism is religion, not science.

If you want to read a few books and take issue with him, or me, go ahead.

You have embraced the human hating CO2 cause of warming while ignoring past cycles. Plenty of threads to debate that one. I find it amazing that otherwise rational people close their minds to this debate.

Where did the "human hating" come from? It is a scientific question, and emotive words should have no place in it.

Climate can be cyclical, but this change is pretty much way off cycle - that's the problem. There may be websites debating the question, but very few climate scientists.

Droughts take time to end, but you keep faith in your drought. As for Perry's instructions to pray I don't take my spiritual leadership from Perry. I don't even think him the best candidate.

It was you who said the drought was ending. The science says it is still going on.

You can already see how another candidate (Huntsman) is calling Perry and Bachmann out on their pseudo-science. So it's not just me. It would be a fatal error to elect an irrationalist as President.

Originally Posted by toughbutfair

Why don't you just explain what creationalism is, if it isn't that god created the world in 6 days as per the bible. You keep on saying "you don't know what it is", it would be better if you explained it then.

The problem with "creationism" is that there is no one definition that all people accept. Many will interpret it in such a way that the 6 days will be interpreted in 6 stages that take place over a much longer period of time. You will have to consult an expert like owedtojoy if you want the lowdown, apparently he read a book.