This is it, ladies and gentlemen. You’ve been hearing about it from us for months now. The bill that would empower creationists, climate change deniers, anti-vaccine proponents, and other factual science education foes to challenge the textbooks and other instructional materials in school districts across the state is on the governor’s desk. This is your last chance to influence its fate. Contact Gov. Rick Scott and voice your opposition to HB 989 Instructional Materials now. Call (850) 717-9337. Use the email form. Don’t wait.
For all the gory details about this bill and our opposition, see our Instructional Materials bills ’17 blog category.
Just made a call to the Gov Scotts office. They put me on hold for 20 mins but I hung in there and was able to speak with a representative. I really hope everyone who can will make a call or e-mail. Stand up for science guys.
At some point there needs to be some realization accepted with the fact that after over 100 years of influence Darwin’s full theory is not considered plausible by more than half the US population. Evolution in one form or another is presented as fact in nearly every museum, state and federal park, television science programs, every public school, secular collages, many religious schools and even the pope has pushed some of the theory. You would think with all this publicity the percentage of acceptance would be closer to one hundred, but that’s not the results. The lack of belief in the theory is not from lack of understanding it, it’s from understanding it completely. Questioning the science of the theory doesn’t reveal new or solid facts but rather insults for answers. Being branded anti-science for using science to question a scientific theory is science. But this is not the case for evolution, because it goes beyond science. Evolution is now described by many as a secular religion with adherence to a faith not reality.
Evolution’s proposed indoctrination plight is not just with the public school system. Now the internet has openly revealed the fallacies, frauds, and deceptions of the theory for everyone to see, along with other possibilities for origins. This new informational avenue alone stands capable of destroying the idea life evolved from non-life on earth.
At some point I believe the faithful evolutionist will retreat to salvage the theory with a new reality that the earth was seeded by aliens. As stupid as it sounds this is a concept suggested by nearly every prominent evolutionist who has honestly considered the facts.
With too many articles to list I’ll just say the Pope is satisfied with the alien idea. And he even suggests Christians trash their bibles along with Jesus and follow the wisdom of the aliens who have no inbreed contamination of sin, but are without sin and closer to God. The Vatican’s astronomer say’s we are not alone.
All of this fits nicely within the prophetic scriptures and the satanic deception to come during the end times. We’ll see.
Chris: … Darwin’s full theory is not considered plausible by more than half the US population.
Some people need to realize that science does not proceed by holding popularity contests. Last I heard, people who think that have never accomplished anything scientifically (can you name any exceptions?).
…insults for answers.
Pls review your own postings on this site before trying such complaints.
Evolution is now described by many …
Hey, a tactic straight out of Trump’s Art of the Lie!
Now the internet has openly revealed …
… an open sewer of lies, bigotry, ignorance, superstition and exciting investment opportunities with Nigerian princes and Bill Gates! Do you really not have any criteria for evaluating truth and falsity beyond “it was on the internet!!1!”?
Hey, why not pick a specific evolutionary scientific fact and show us all (on the internet!!) exactly where it’s wrong? (Don’t forget to check your example and data against the Index to Creationist Claims.)
As stupid as it sounds this is a concept suggested by nearly every prominent evolutionist who has honestly considered the facts.
Show us some particular examples. Note: we already know that Ben Stein’s “documentary” Expelled faked that story by pushing Dawkins on that idea – he never brought it up – and then spliced in his answer after a different question. So: find some ACTUAL examples.
The Pope is not a scientist. I would note the current Pope, with his fixation on demons and exorcisms, seems even less scientific than anyone else holding his job for the last century or more.
And have you ever looked up how many times the “End Timesâ„¢” have been proclaimed and nothing happened but a bunch of fools getting embarrassed/scammed?
I almost busted a gut on this one. We now have to leave the planet in search of aliens to prove evolution. It can’t be done here? Very funny.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/nasas-new-assignments-find-aliens-prove-evolution/
Pierce- Most of Talk Origins is a classical display of humanist ignorance. You could get far more accurate information from Nancy Poloxy before she knew it.
Chris – Please consider (a) replying to points addressed to you, and (b) making sense.
Chris,
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or COUNTER a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence has to be empirical evidence and in accordance with the scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence can vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and controlled testing. If there is valid scientific evidence to support an alternative theory to evolution would you explain that to us? Also could you show, as we have to in science, any evidence that counters this theory? Remember, there is no need to mention evolution when presenting your evidence. Looking forward to seeing your results
Chris, If you answer, please don’t quote any more crap from W N D better know as Wing Nut Dummies. Others will take you less seriously if that’s even possible.
Jonathan-No one could disagree with your explanation of the scientific method. Use of the scientific method is what comes into question with much of Darwin’s theory. I’m not proposing a different theory, I’m questioning the evidence used to support the idea organisms can change dramatically, such as a frog to a duck. For much of evolution, supposition appears to be the proper term, not fact. Speciation is well understood but to my knowledge nowhere in human history has simple speciation along with mutation or natural selection changed anything from one kind of organism to another in this way. Can you show us some examples of this event taking place without the inclusion of vast amounts of faith? Looking forward to seeing your examples.
My reference to aliens sounds comical, but in the near future I believe it will become a vital part of evolution’s foundation and incorporated as science. Dawkins is not alone in his belief in aliens. Recently John Podesta stated he was disappointed that the Obama administration hadn’t informed the American public about their existence and about UFO’s. There is ample personal testimony to support the belief. Billy Crone has assimilated a pretty good presentation of testimonies with documentation, if your interested. And no, I don’t believe the aliens are aliens, but that’s another subject.
Chris – Pls show us, with links, who claims that ducks came from frogs.
Dawkins is not alone in his belief in aliens.
As I pointed out above, Dawkins does not hold that belief, except in creationist lies.
… John Podesta … – a political operative, NOT a scientist.
There is ample personal testimony to support the belief… in astrology, homeopathy, telekinesis – all sorts of fantasies that dissolve under clear scrutiny.
Haven’t you noticed? This is a science blog.
Chris,
I asked you ” If there is valid scientific evidence to support an alternative theory to evolution would you explain that to us? Also could you show, as we have to in science, any evidence that counters this theory? Remember, there is no need to mention evolution when presenting your evidence. How ever, you,as I expected, side stepped the question completly. I really would like a valid,evidence based answer?
Jonathan – I had hoped you could provide maybe just one example of the supposed change in kind which is said to be so prevalent Are we to assume there are no such transitions which fit the scientific method without the inclusion of faith.
No side stepping here, there is another theory which I think will prove to be widely accepted, even by you. Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel called it “directed panspermia†whereby the planet was intentional seeded with life from an unknown civilization. Professor Milton Wainwright has recently discovered evidence of microorganisms in space and he has stated the biology books will need to be rewritten. There are too many articles to list but here is a couple.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-origins-of-directed-panspermia/
http://miltonwainwright.com/panspermia-life-in-space/
Pierce – I know it’s stupid, but that what they say, reptiles gave rise to birds. And you’re right there are lots of other fantasies that dissolve under clear scrutiny.
Chris – Let’s just assume evolution is wrong, science made a huge mistake.
So we now need a scientific explanation to answer the questions evolution did. What would you replace it with? Remember, we require valid scientific evidence to support an alternative theory to evolution Also any evidence that would invalidate that alternative theory. That should be the easy part for you.
Chris – FYI: frogs are not reptiles.
Now please try to answer Jonathan Smith’s question without swerving into science fiction.
Jonathan – Great question. I assume you’re asking me to propose a new theory which adheres to the scientific method being testable and observable. Remember you were unwilling or unable to provide such evidence for a single major biological transition. No disrespect is intended.
My alternative theory to evolution might be called ‘On the Fixity of Species’. The theory that no life form has evolved or changed beyond the level of normal speciation. All organisms remain within their own inherited fixed genetic boundaries and reject change beyond it. Is it observable? Yes, as you have shown there are no examples to the contrary. Is it testable? Yes, breed or surgically alter an organism with parts from a different genus to produce a new living creature. This theory could be easily invalidated by successfully making a duck from a frog or any other combination.
If evolution was taken out of the pitcher for the secular world I think presently you’d be stuck with a similar scenario having to adjust the facts to fit the desired outcome. In turn justifying mans human nature while rejecting the obvious. This is why I think the coming alien fiasco will be an excellent replacement for evolution on earth. The ET idea can be accepted hook line and sinker as science. regardless of science.
Pierce – You got me on the frog. I guess you need a lizard to make a duck.
So Chris- very interesting. And all the original species came from ???????
Chris (to J. Smith): … evidence for a single major biological transition.
Many of us have provided you with such evidence, repeatedly. See, e.g., http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.
… evolved or changed beyond the level of normal speciation.
So you concede that natural selection (etc) do produce new species? Have you figured out yet you just contradicted your own “Fixity of Species” claim?
All organisms remain within their own inherited fixed genetic boundaries …
Yep, all organisms retain the genotype with which they were born/conceived/fissioned. Evolutionary changes take place on the population level over many generations: individuals do not experience genetic changes (except for very recent high-tech experimentation).
… taken out of the pitcher …
Neither creationists nor the scientifically-minded should trust dictation software. But be warned – if you learn to spell-check, one day you might feel an urge to fact-check!
… having to adjust the facts to fit the desired outcome.
Lots of unsubtle innuendo here. With evolution somehow arbitrarily removed from consideration, how do you (think you) know what biologists would desire?
Jonathan – I think you’re asking the wrong question. The organ of life is not part of my theory, nor was it part of Darwin’s. You could say, we don’t know yet.
Chris, So you are saying that all species that are around today are pretty much the same as they have always been. You came up with your “Fixity of Species” idea, but you have no thoughts on how those species became “fixed”
We both know you do,you just can’t bring yourself to say it, can you.? Because at that point, you will be moving from the science method, to a subject based on your personal faith.
Jonathan, How species became fixed or how they originated in the first place is irrelevant. My personal belief has nothing to do with this theory. To be fair we should listen to an expert. As stating the original number of life forms as a few or one Darwin indicated they appear by some wholly unknown process. But in relation to these thoughts he said, “ It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter.”
While my theory has merit as science, yours is questionable. You must believe dramatic biological change has taken place without a single genuine example. I can show species are fixed with boundaries through any number of observable and testable processes. On the other hand you must believe the assertions of countless bias suppositions with no subjects for verification. So as to faith, you’ve got me beat.
Chris, – you said
“Jonathan, How species became fixed or how they originated in the first place is irrelevant” No, its not, its very relevant.
“While my theory has merit as science, yours is questionable’ Only in your mind Chris.
Chris cites an “expert” who’s been dead for 135 years, as if science proceeded like religions and depended on prophetic revelations. No, it does not work like that – believe it or not, we also have some pretty good ideas on the “origin of matter” now, too.
I can show species are fixed with boundaries through any number of observable and testable processes.
Yeah, sure. Show this to us, and you can start shopping for your trip to Stockholm to pick up a well-known Prize.
Of course, you never answer any of our specific questions, even in this thread – do you, Chris?
Joanthan – Let me be sure I understand. Are we now saying a theory regardless of it’s composure must address the origin of life. When the question is directed at evolution’s missing or unknown beginnings the common response is, the origin of life is not part of biological evolution. Can you explain the needed relevance for the origin of life in my theory and not in evolution?
Peirce, Let’s take this portion of your bable for referring award winning theory.
‘Yeah, sure. Show this to us, and you can start shopping for your trip to Stockholm to pick up a well-known Prize.’
The quickest, simplest and most convincing example is no one has produced anything to the contrary, which includes everyone here.
Chris – The quickest, simplest and most convincing example is no one has produced anything to the contrary, which includes everyone here.
You have not given one specific rebuttal to any of the challenges to you to do so since 6/22: I quit counting after 5…
All we get from you is blanket denialism. Sorry, but Trump, Spicer, Sanders & Co are using the entire world supply this month, with none left for creationist trolls.
Why not, say, quote some van Daniken or Nostradamus at us? Provoke with a little more style!
And, you useta at least spell my name right. *sniffle*
Pierce, Sorry to make you cry.
I get no answers, why should you.
You guys might enjoy this article about the evasion of evolutions origin of life issue. The comments go on forever.
https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/does-darwins-theory-of-evolution-address-the-origin-of-life/
Chris on 6/28: How species became fixed or how they originated in the first place is irrelevant.
Chris on 7/1: … the evasion of evolutions origin of life issue.
What a difference flipping a calendar page makes!
Pierce, yes a whole new subject. The origin of life leads down some dangerous paths for your sacred theory and my award winner. If Jonathan had left that out of the conversation all would be just fine. But now we have to deal with space aliens, deep sea vents, primordial soup, electric sparks, space dust, spontaneous generation, and who knows what else.
Chris, this continual childishness for lack of any substance has gotten quite boring.
Why not take a few years off and see if you can complete a course in Conversation 101?
Pierce, I know, the lack of substance has gotten quite boring. I ask Jonathan a question I get nothing, I ask Ivorygirl a question I get histeria, I ask you a question I get BS. I suppose no one likes the questions because no one likes the answers. Good luck with space dust.