CDarwin

*cough*troll*cough*

Young Earth Creationism is a kind of Creationism. There are plenty of other kinds that oppose the scientific consensus on the origins and evolution of life and the universe, all of which fall under the umbrella term Creationism.

Thank you. I suppose I should have just gone with the Wikipedia but I wasn't totally sure. I'm just making a passing reference so it isn't horribly important to my paper or anything, but I don't want to look stupid in case anyone who knows what they're talking about with cosmology happens to read it.

That's pretty much the definition of Lamarckianism, as far as I understand the term... Of course, epigenetics are showing that in some ways Lamarckianism isn't totally off, but that's still Lamarckianism.

Why does everyone feel the need to fight back against this fellow? It seems like it offers him legitimacy.

Wtf? How does that possibly make sense? *sigh* You know I had intended this thread to become a challenging discussion on the way the scientific community deals with these two movements that sit in opposition to it's consensus position, and perhaps on whether or not these movements contribute. I see people are just too defensive about these issues for that to be possible. Fine, fine, everybody lay your spins back down and return to your homes. Dispassionate discussion is impossible.

Denying the consensus position.

Fire

Excellent article by (my hero) Fareed Zakaria in last week's Newsweek on the topic: http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346

Do you deny that there is a scientific consensus on both evolution and anthropogenic global warming? That's the only basis I'm working from on this thread. By the way, I haven't call anyone anything unless you consider it an insult to one group or the other to suggest a comparison between them, in which case you're rejecting the someone's axiom without offering any evidence your axiom is true. This isn't a debate about evolution or global warming. This is a discussion about how the groups that oppose those ideas relate to the public and larger scientific community. Why on earth wouldn't I be interested in what the members of either of these groups have to say about their own role and that of the other? I'm not doing the lumping, I'm asking if there should be a lumping. Otherwise, valid point. That's the sort of response I was going for when I made the thread. Though, Creationism doesn't refer simply to those who believe that God was important in the creation of the universe. It refers specifically to those who deny those elements and findings of science which conflict with their belief as to how God played a part in that creation. In it's most extreme form (YEC) that's just about everything, whereas in ID it's mostly specific denials of explanations of things like the evolution of the eye, or of the validity specific lines of evidence. So both Creationists and GB deniers are engaged in some sort of denial. I'm talking mostly about the movements here, so active denial.

I think I'll make my contribution to this thread by debunking that rather persistent and irritating myth. That's from the USGS. I hope that's a reliable enough source for you. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html The statement is disingenuous anyway. Isotope studies demonstrate that the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the 20th Century is mostly due to human sources. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

If I had to put a single number down as the age of the universe, what would be the safest one as of the current consensus? EDIT: You know, this might go in "homework help." I'm putting this in a scholarship essay and I just want a safe number.

I promise I'm not trying to make a point with this. I'm just curious as to how you feel the scientific community should treat these two groups that oppose basically what it as a body is saying. Now obviously there are some global warming deniers (or anthropogenic global warming, or whatever semantic games you want to play) and even a few Creationists on this site, so perhaps you're going to have a different opinion than us drones, and I'd be interested to hear those too. Is denying the scientific consensus on the origins and development of life and the universe analogous to denying the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change? Is one position more valid than the other? Does either group serve any more valid function than the other?

When you're tired of rotting your mind with physics mumbo-jumbo: What Evolution Is, by Ernst Mayr The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey(with a grain of salt), by Chris Beard Anything by Craig Stanford, because he's s good writer, but with a very, very large grain of salt because he is religiously devoted to his meat-sharing idea and puts it in everything. I've read Upright and The Hunting Apes. Coming of Age in Samoa, by Margaret Mead Mutants, By Armand Marie Leroi And if you're interested in science as a profession: Advice for a Young Investigator, By Santiago Ramon y Cajal

Joke, joke. Geez. Seriously, I don't think you can really pin what you're talking about down to any single thing. Why do Canadians say "aboot?"

Right after lauding Jerry Falwell who said 9/11 was God's retribution for America having gay people. It's really incredible all the wacky stuff we let supposedly "mainstream" fundies get away with.

Right. Democracy.

Iranians are extremely nationalistic. When you demonize their government, they percieve it as a slight. I'm not saying criticism of Iran doesn't have a place, but being so theatrical about it doesn't score us any points. When we call Iran part of an "axis of evil", it's a slap in the face of every Iranian. That's not going to put anyone into a cooperative mood. Did you not notice what happened when Ahmedinijad came to the US? Yeah, everybody's in love with him. I seriously don't think that if Bush gave a speech at Columbia University he would be called a 'dictator' by the president. Ahmedinijad is most popular when the West makes a martyr out of him by calling him "Hitler" and all that. The economy's in pretty bad shape and his morality crackdowns aren't terribly popular. He was elected because of the Iranians percieved that the reformers weren't getting results so they thought they'd try their hand with a hardliner.

Chicken chickener.

It's our democratic spirit. Everyone gets to join in with an inane comment in America, no matter what his creed, color, or class. That's what we fought a revolution over.

Saying Young Earth Creationism is bunk doesn't require proving a universal negative. It makes demonstrably false positive claims: The earth is 6,000 years old, a flood made the Grand Canyon, all human languages derive from a singly point in Babylon, etc. You're making difficulties. As far as we can possibly know, there are not perpetual motion machines. As far as we can possibly know you can't hold your breath under water for a year and survive. As far as we can possibly know the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Do the qualifiers make you feel better?

It is a state law which stipulates that New Hampshire's is to be the first primary in the nation, and that if any other states move their primary before New Hampshire's, New Hampshire must move its. I think they've had to do it once. Just a note: Iowa doesn't actually hold a primary. It's the site of the first party caucuses.

New Hampshire being the first primary is a matter of law, so I don't think they need to worry too much. Still, right concernin'. I'm wondering who in the party apparati are making these decisions. It seems like that could be a good way to engineer which candidate will win the nomination.

I don't believe that video was meant to argue against Creationists... It's intent was to demonstrate to people who already know Creationism is whooey just how off it is, as a sort of call to arms. We needn't rake poor Lockheed over the coals, here.

Oh, those pesky females with thier seperate reproductive interests.