The piltdown man hung around for about 40 years which rivals some of the creationists lies.
But Haekel’s embryonic drawings have to be some kind of record. Drawn in the 1860’s
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1242
They show an embryo’s developmental stages. There is a drawing of a fish and one of a turtle in it.
You can buy a 2002 textbook with the drawing in it on Amazon.
Yes it will get looked at.
We can see objects more than 13 billion light years away – almost the entire lifetime of the universe. They’re red-shifted. Therefore, the universe has been expanding for almost it’s entire lifetime.
If the universe had suddenly started expanding at some point in the past, we’d see a bunch of distant galaxies that all had the same redshift, not a smooth continuum.
Actually, Piltdown was never accepted by the scientific community.
What is your point? Haeckel was challenged in the scientific community within two years of his publication. To this day, there is still no final word on whether the errors in his drawings were the result of fraud or sloppiness.
What that has to do with his drawings appearing in a text book, I am not sure. Scientists do not tend to write textbooks. Textbooks are written by people who have greater or lesser knowledge of their topics, hired by publishing companies to create works that some school board or another, (generally filled with laypersons whose credentials are not that strong), finds “appropriate” for teaching a subject. That an error is discovered in a textbook indicates only that textbook publishers are pretty sloppy, themselves. Do you have a citation to any scientific paper since 1900 (or earlier) that uses Haeckel’s drawings to make a scientific point?
Haeckel’s claim that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has been rejected by scientists for 100 years, or more.
But it is accessible to everyone with an internet connection. Did you ever watch the videos I posted in this post? You could’ve been done by now.
You said earlier that the Big Bang Theory is incomplete because there’s no solid evidence for inflation, and now you’re saying it’s about 50% wrong? Those are very different claims. Would you mind describing the errors? There’s no validity to the number you’re making up.
These bait-and-switch posts were the OP has some hidden agenda are really annoying. I love reading opposing viewpoint threads and being a part of a lively debate, but why couldn’t the poster have stated in original intentions in the first post.
Asking “What is the evidence for the big bang?” and the pulling “science has not found anything that would prove intelligent design false” out of their rear-end 33 posts later seems a little off kilter to me.
You would favor the teaching of atheism in public school?
What would that encompass? Atheism is not believing in gods and/or goddesses. As long as belief in such entities isn’t supported in schools, everything is fine.
You can teach that ID is bunk without teaching atheism. Again; ID is nothing but a dishonest attempt to shove Creationism into the schools; something demonstrated in the courts. It’s not an actual scientific theory, nor is it some universal feature of religions; tomndebb is Catholic IIRC, and ID isn’t a Catholic position last I checked, theistic evolution is.
Which is still bunk, but different bunk and less blatantly so. And more to the point, it isn’t pretending to be scientific.
You seem to be conflating “Intelligent Design” with the concept of an intelligent designer. The former is a dishonest attempt to inject religion, specifically fundamentalist Christianity, into the schools. It is at odds with science because it rejects facts, is ill defined, and provides no testable hypothesis.
The idea of an intelligent designer is not at odds with science, it is simply orthogonal to it.
George Gamow, Michael Zeilik and Steven Weinberg have written textbooks still used in schools today.
But more to the point the textbook with Haekels drawings in them was written by scientists.
George B. Johnson
Johnson got his B.A. in English from Dartmouth College in 1964. His interests changed and as a result went on to earn his M.A. in biochemistry, also at Dartmouth College.
He was granted his Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1972, his thesis being on population biology.
Johnson was a Research Fellow at Carnegie Institute of Washington, Department of Plant Biology, Stanford, California, throughout 1975 and 1976. He was made Associate Professor of Biology at Washington University at St. Louis, Missouri, during 1976-1980. He was also Associate Professor of Genetics at the School of Medicine from 1976-1981. He was also Lector, Genetisk Institute at Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, in April and August 1977.
In 1980 he moved onto the post of Professor of Biology at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, a post he held until 2004. He was also Professor of Genetics there from 1981 to 2004. During the years 1987 and 1990 he served as Director at The Living World education center, St. Louis Zoo.
Since 2004 he works as Professor Emeritus of Biology at Washington University.
Peter Hamilton Raven
After teaching at Stanford University, Raven went on to become Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden in 1971, a position he continues to hold. Raven now teaches at Washington University in St. Louis as the Engelmann Professor of Botany. In 2006, his position was renamed President and Director. Raven recently announced his plans to retire in 2011, to coincide with his 75th birthday and his 40th year at the Garden.
Raven is possibly best known for his important work Coevolution of Insects and Plants published in the journal Evolution in 1964 which he coauthored with Paul R. Ehrlich. Since then he has authored numerous scientific and popular papers, many on the evening primrose family, Onagraceae. Raven is also an author of the widely used textbook Biology of Plants, now in its seventh edition, coauthored with Ray F. Evert and Susan E. Eichhorn (both of University of Wisconsin, Madison).
He is a frequent speaker on the need for biodiversity and species conservation.
Raven is currently writing his memoirs, assisted by Andrew Szanton.
The American Society of Plant Taxonomists established in 2000 the Peter Raven Award in his honor to be conferred to authors with outstanding contributions to plant taxonomy and “for exceptional efforts at outreach to non-scientists”.
He serves on the advisory council of CRDF Global. He also served on the board of trustees for Science Service, now known as Society for Science & the Public, from 1993-1996.
Arthur Hoyt Scott Medal 2009, awarded by the Scott Arboretum of Swarthmore College[2]
U.S. National Medal of Science recipient, 2000[2]
Honorary Member of the American Society of Landscape Architects
Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement
Catharine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellowship, 1985
Member of President Bill Clinton’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
Former Home Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
International Prize for Biology winner
Former President of Sigma Xi
Engler Medal winner
Volvo Prize winner
Induction into the St. Louis Walk of Fame in 1995
Former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
International Cosmos Prize, 2003
Named a Hero for the Planet by TIME magazine
Member of National Geographic Society board of trustees
The Delmer S. Fahrney Medal in 1989
Czarcasn, Der Trihs and sh1bu1
I am not sure what tomndebb meant by suggesting ID should be debunked as part of an evolution class.
That is why I asked .
What would teaching atheism encompass?
Not sure if I want to know.
I honestly did not know that ID was considered some kind of half science and half religious theory, sh1bu1 is correct I am using ID as a catchall term and not as a formal theory. I will find a better way of saying what I mean.
Thank you for your “no” answers it is nice to find something we can agree on.
Also I do agree with this:
"The idea of an intelligent designer is not at odds with science, it is simply orthogonal to it. "
Thank you for the link and although I have watched part of it I have not taken the time (I need to) to watch all of it yet.
Thats what I meant when I said to pull a number out of my hat. That I was making it up.
This is a little bit of an apples to oranges comparison but I think it is fair.
We cannot even get recent history right. Who discovered America first Indians, Eskimos, Columbus (was he Portuguese or Italian?) Herjolfsson, Ericsson, or Vespucci?
Just on the basis of that alone I would assume that some parts of the theory are incorrect. Not having solid evidence for parts of the theory makes it incomplete which by definition is imperfect.
But no I did not mean it to be taken as a literal number and yes it was a wild guess.
The bible is not taught at taxpayer funded public schools and I would not want it to be.
But if it was I would be fine with a disclaimer altho I might quibble with you about the wording.
I apologize and will try to be more honest in the future. I thought it might be kind of obvious since I put it in the debate section as opposed to general questions.
Please read my post #177 on this thread for more disclosure.
ID isn’t “half science and half religious theory”; it isn’t scientific at all, it isn’t a theory, and it is a fraud.
[QUOTE=U.S. District Judge John E. Jones]
“We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.”
The disclaimer, he said, “singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.”
<snip>
“It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”
[/QUOTE]
humm I think you misunderstood what I trying to say when I said no scientific theory is 100%. To clarify my position, I will state it as follows :
I personally BELIEVE in BBT because I can not find another theory out there that explain as much observable universe as it can. I will not even attempt to try and defend it as I do not possess the knowledge to do so. To even try would be the same as me lying or misleading other.
You said you would be happy if BBT describe the universe 80% of the time, not be ass but that statement is incomplete. when I said no theory is 100% is because our own observation is by no means complete or even precise enough (no theory is complete thus it’s highest form a hypothesis can achieve). Someone out there might detect “something” that might overturn BBT or any other theory, even that not enough. You would need then to come up with a different model that fits the data that supported BBT previously and includes the new data as well. Chances are the new theory is gonna be very similar to BBT as now since it has been around a long time and been patched up so many time already.
As you stated you think BBT explains 50% of data collected, I don’t think in that way. As long BBT explains MORE then its competitor then it will continue to be my flavor of month even if its 10% or 50%. Like in a game of poker even if I only have high card (no combination in the 5 cards given out) as long as I have the highest card I win the round.
For your motivation I stand unconvinced when the thread keep on getting sidetracked into completely unrelated scientific field but that could be just other poster’s fault. It’s just I see this kind of tactic used by many Religious apologist but if I am mistaken then I apologize in advance. But if you are really here for the pursuit of knowledge then I recommend you look into quantum field theory, Standard Model or even Membrane theory. If BBT is to hold we have to understand when universe is suppose to be super “hot” and “dense”. LHC is best chance we have to simulate what might early universe is like under lab condition short of time travel machine. It might look like I am just name dropping but that due to my own ignorance and inability to portray these theories but if any convincing data thats going to come out in support or detract from BBT I bet its going to be from LHC.
Indians arrived first, then Eskimos. Then Herjolfsson sighted the coast, prompting Ericsson to follow up with an expedition that landed. Finally, Columbus, who was Italian, but working for the Spanish. The first Portuguese to discover something in the New World was Pedro Cabral, who discovered the coast of Brazil. Vespucci was a map-maker who never discovered anything.
This is all well-supported and not at all confusing. I’m not sure why you consider it some grand mystery.
“We don’t know everything about everything, so therefore there must be significant holes in the big bang theory. What they are, I have no idea. But I know they must be there!”
Really now. This is the argument you’ve come to?
Here’s what I think is going on. The big bang theory contradicts what you’ve been taught in church. You badly want it to be wrong. So rather than trying to understand the theory, you’re grasping at straws, trying to find anything that will poke a hole in the theory and make it go away.
Small, faint galaxies are red-shifted more than large, bright galaxies. If a galaxy is small and faint, it must be far away. Its light must have been traveling a long time to reach us. The universe has been expanding ever since light left those small, faint galaxies. So the universe has been expanding for a long time. As far as we can tell, it’s always been expanding.
If we run the expansion backwards, eventually the universe must have been in a state where everything was crammed so close together that there wasn’t room for separate stars or galaxies. All that would exist would be a cloud of super-hot gas filling space. And if we look past the smallest, faintest galaxies – if we look back even farther in time – that’s exactly what we see. The cosmic microwave background is the very red-shifted light coming from that cloud of super-hot gas.
What part of this explanation do you find wanting?
Correction. Vespucci was an Italian explorer who followed up on Cabral’s expedition. The map-maker who attached his name to America was Waldseemuller.