Conservapedia vs an actual scientist. Guess who wins??

[Gzette]

This e-mail exchange is worth the read. I LOLd. I have no comment on conservative folks' opinions on evolution, but it is quite the cogent and restrained tongue lashing and worth 15 mins of your time. Enjoy

http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/all-t ... st-pwnage/

None quoted because it is entirely too long for a post.

[Kaldaur]

I love how he links wikipedia references to "unicorn in the garden" and "allusion".
Beautiful. I learned quite a bit in there as well, and the amount of times they bred E.coli strains is staggering.

[Hesten]

Lol, i doubt most people would have been so nice as that guy was in explaning his studies, and offering help, even after insults.

[Toshira]

I love how he links wikipedia references to "unicorn in the garden" and "allusion".
Beautiful. I learned quite a bit in there as well, and the amount of times they bred E.coli strains is staggering.

And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion]

yeah I saw that too and started rolling.

[Gzette]

That was my favorite part too.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

This is such a truth...

From the content on your website, it is clear that you, like many others, view God as the Creator of the Universe. I respect that view. I find it baffling, however, that someone can worship God as the all-mighty Creator while, at the same time, denying even the possibility (not to mention the overwhelming evidence) that God’s Creation involved evolution. It is as though a person thinks that God must have the same limitations when it comes to creation as a person who is unable to understand, or even attempt to understand, the world in which we live.

I am not sure why most Christians believe that there can be zero evolution. It is not spelled out like that anywhere in the Bible....but then again each denomination applies their own views to each passage.

[Canelek]

Good point. the evolution bit does indeed vary from denomination to denomination, and there is of course the belief of the individual to factor in. Keep in mind there is a vast difference between regular Christian folk and my batshit evangelical southern family. HUGE difference!

[Winnow]

....but then again each denomination applies their own views to each passage.

Religion adapts to keep the donation plates full.

Whatever science explains, religion back peddles and says God must have created the step before that then. It's got to be great to be in the religion business.

I'm surprised a more marketable image hasn't been dreamed up yet. The stale guy nailed to a cross doesn't sell well with the younger generation. Something along the lines of a Hello Kitty Jesus.

[cadalano]

i'd imagine that the main snag with the possibility of evolution being an original part of god's plan is that it conflicts with the belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

[Gzette]

I'm on to you Winnow

I'm surprised a more marketable image hasn't been dreamed up yet. The stale guy nailed to a cross doesn't sell well with the younger generation. Something along the lines of a Hello Kitty Jesus.

[Fash]

But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren’t very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it’s not that we claim to have glimpsed “a unicorn in the garden” – we have a whole population of them living in my lab! [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unicorn_in_the_Garden] And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion]

That was great... Especially interesting is the actual study! Their E. Coli strain evolved over 40k+ generations, developing mutations that eventually allowed them to use citrate. Started without any ability to use it, and then from ~20k generations on it started using it more and more efficiently. First, additional potential genotypes, and then beneficial mutations... influenced only by it's environment.

[Xatrei]

So, Fash, how did you come to the conclusion that THIS scientist knows what he's talking about?

[Fash]

Well, this is an experiment that can actually be controlled, and proven. (with the bacteria they have tons of)

Dude, I love science... Please don't get me wrong solely based on the global warming discussions.

Science is god as far as I'm concerned, but we need to question it as well.

I am sometimes skeptical of the human ability to accurately research or forecast certain situations that I believe are impossible to control. We are very capable but despite our constant advancement, we still have limitations.

If there were 25 Earths and we lived on a beautifully terraformed Mars and flew around in personal spaceships, I would still be a little unsure about the weather forecasting on any given earth. It's not a closed system, and we barely understand all the forces it interacts with, nor can we control any of them... Some science is fail from the start, though it can come up with very compelling observations to keep us busy!

my entry for worst analogy ever: The scientific method is kind of like the constitution... we haven't been following it.

I hope this helps illustrate my position in favor of science and skepticism at the same time.

[Xyun]

....but then again each denomination applies their own views to each passage.

Religion adapts to keep the donation plates full.

Whatever science explains, religion back peddles and says God must have created the step before that then. It's got to be great to be in the religion business.

I'm surprised a more marketable image hasn't been dreamed up yet. The stale guy nailed to a cross doesn't sell well with the younger generation. Something along the lines of a Hello Kitty Jesus.

Are you kidding me?? Ummm.... let me help you out:

[Xatrei]

Well, this is an experiment that can actually be controlled, and proven. (with the bacteria they have tons of)

Dude, I love science... Please don't get me wrong solely based on the global warming discussions.

Science is god as far as I'm concerned, but we need to question it as well.

I am sometimes skeptical of the human ability to accurately research or forecast certain situations that I believe are impossible to control. We are very capable but despite our constant advancement, we still have limitations.

If there were 25 Earths and we lived on a beautifully terraformed Mars and flew around in personal spaceships, I would still be a little unsure about the weather forecasting on any given earth. It's not a closed system, and we barely understand all the forces it interacts with, nor can we control any of them... Some science is fail from the start, though it can come up with very compelling observations to keep us busy!

my entry for worst analogy ever: The scientific method is kind of like the constitution... we haven't been following it.

I hope this helps illustrate my position in favor of science and skepticism at the same time.

Skepticism and science are not oppositional to each other. Skepticism is a critical, fundamental element of science. You, however, go beyond skepticism when it comes to science that doesn't readily fit with your notion of how the world is. Much like Mr. Schlafley here, when presented with clear and compelling evidence that is contrary to your own dogmatic beliefs (yes, your rejection of climate change science seems to be entirely a matter of faith), you reject them outright and declare that the scientists behind the work are just pushing an agenda. You've gone so far as to essentially declare the IPCC's findings not worth the time it takes to review the report. In the case of the Lenski's work, because it's kind of a cool story that happens to fall in line with your own world view, you readily accept what this guy says, with no need to review, let alone question, his data.

We don't need a large supply of earth-like worlds with which we can experiment to measure a cause and effect relationship between GHG levels and the atmospheric and oceanic temperatures. We can measure this with amazing accuracy from ice core and sedimentary samples dating back hundreds of thousands of years. This isn't a matter of weather forecasting. We can measure the amount of GHGs that human activity is contributing to the atmosphere. We can measure the fact that GHGs are at virtually unprecedented levels. We know from historical record how high concentrations of GHGs effect temperature. We don't need to have 25 worlds to experiment on to know that curtailing our destructive activities is a good thing.

edit: grammar

[Xyun]

oops. sorry i fixed my above post.

[Fash]

Skepticism and science are not oppositional to each other. Skepticism is a critical, fundamental element of science. You, however, go beyond skepticism when it comes to science that doesn't readily fit with your notion of how the world is. Much like Mr. Schlafley here, when presented with clear and compelling evidence that is contrary to your own dogmatic beliefs (yes, your rejection of climate change science seems to be entirely a matter of faith), you reject them outright and declare that the scientists behind the work are just pushing an agenda. You've gone so far as to essentially declare the IPCC's findings not worth the time it takes to review the report. In the case of the Lenski's work, because it's kind of a cool story that happens to fall in line with your own world view, you readily accept what this guy says, with no need to review, let alone question, his data.

We don't need a large supply of earth-like worlds with which we can experiment to measure a cause and effect relationship between GHG levels and the atmospheric and oceanic temperatures. We can measure this with amazing accuracy from ice core and sedimentary samples dating back hundreds of thousands of years. This isn't a matter of weather forecasting. We can measure the amount of GHGs that human activity is contributing to the atmosphere. We can measure the fact that GHGs are at virtually unprecedented levels. We know from historical record how high concentrations of GHGs effect temperature. We don't need to have 25 worlds to experiment on to know that curtailing our destructive activities is a good thing.

edit: grammar

I actually don't reject the general theme of climate change science, I reject the proposed solutions... and my rejection is not a matter of faith, but a lack thereof.

I agree mankind is impacting the climate and could do better, but I am not convinced that cap-and-trade / carbon credit systems are going to correct or alleviate that.

I am not the one who said the IPCC report wasn't worth reading... I am the one who is willing to cede the climate argument if the general conversation could move to the solutions before they are implemented behind the curtain.

Also... correlation is not causation.

I science. I think you've got me wrong.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Skepticism and science are not oppositional to each other. Skepticism is a critical, fundamental element of science. You, however, go beyond skepticism when it comes to science that doesn't readily fit with your notion of how the world is. Much like Mr. Schlafley here, when presented with clear and compelling evidence that is contrary to your own dogmatic beliefs (yes, your rejection of climate change science seems to be entirely a matter of faith), you reject them outright and declare that the scientists behind the work are just pushing an agenda. You've gone so far as to essentially declare the IPCC's findings not worth the time it takes to review the report. In the case of the Lenski's work, because it's kind of a cool story that happens to fall in line with your own world view, you readily accept what this guy says, with no need to review, let alone question, his data.

We don't need a large supply of earth-like worlds with which we can experiment to measure a cause and effect relationship between GHG levels and the atmospheric and oceanic temperatures. We can measure this with amazing accuracy from ice core and sedimentary samples dating back hundreds of thousands of years. This isn't a matter of weather forecasting. We can measure the amount of GHGs that human activity is contributing to the atmosphere. We can measure the fact that GHGs are at virtually unprecedented levels. We know from historical record how high concentrations of GHGs effect temperature. We don't need to have 25 worlds to experiment on to know that curtailing our destructive activities is a good thing.

edit: grammar

I actually don't reject the general theme of climate change science, I reject the proposed solutions... and my rejection is not a matter of faith, but a lack thereof.

I agree mankind is impacting the climate and could do better, but I am not convinced that cap-and-trade / carbon credit systems are going to correct or alleviate that.

I am not the one who said the IPCC report wasn't worth reading... I am the one who is willing to cede the climate argument if the general conversation could move to the solutions before they are implemented behind the curtain.

Also... correlation is not causation.

I science. I think you've got me wrong.

Pretty much in full agreement with you, Fash.

[Xatrei]

Also... correlation is not causation.

No one said otherwise. Also, you and your brother's posting history on this subject is not terribly consistent with the sentiment expressed in your post or his "me too." At times you've seemed more reasonable on the subject than others, but you'd have us believe that it's the rule rather than the exception. Whatever, though. Frankly, I'm tired of discussing it with you guys, and only responded because you PMed me asking for a response.

[Fash]

I can only speak for myself but I don't believe that it is inconsistent with my previous postings.

The response was appreciated.