Is Canada's Science Minister a creationalist?

[Alta4ever]

Someone should ask the minister if he believes in Carbon dating. You might have to explain to him that it is a method used to determine how old something is. Also if he believes the world is only about 6000 years old, how come we havn't found any man-made dinosaur saddles? We might have had a Harper ancestor with a dino-boy hat and a seaweed sweatervest rounding up all the cavemen sinners who were picking a certain weed he didn't approve of?

Many faults have been found with carbon dating.

[ToadBrother]

Many faults have been found with carbon dating.

Oh goody, please do tell.

And besides, carbon dating is only good back about 50,000 years, which doesn't do much good when you are, for instance, looking at the leg bone of Homo erectus.

Just how many isotope testing techniques do you care to take on?

[Alta4ever]

Alta4ever, your attempt to pronounce that branches of science take on political leanings... has failed:

so, Alta4ever, beaks off about a supposed firing of a tenured 'engineering' professor for expressed political views on Afghanistan (presumed to be right leaning political views, per Alta4ever's squawk talk)... where in actuality the physics professors firing has no political attachment; rather, it's a firing based on the principles/practices of teaching at the University of Ottawa.

The Two Languages of Academic Freedom

Dismissing critical pedagogy: Denis Rancourt vs. University of Ottawa

Rancourt, a physics professor in his 22nd year at the school, had been at loggerheads with the previous administration since 2005 when he began applying a form of critical pedagogy not traditionally practiced in North American institutions.

Critical pedagogy, for Rancourt, is all about democratizing the classroom. Students are given input over the curriculum, they are encouraged to take classroom discussion wherever it may lead, and there are no grades. Rancourt's preference is a pass/fail system, but when the university refused to allow this he announced on the first day of classes in 2007 that all students would be receiving an A+.

Actaully waldorf if you will read that artical and listen to the charles adler program on it, you will find that the professor does not have right leanings, but whatever waldorf. keep schreeching and ranting putz.

[Argus]

Kimmys point would be fine if Goodyear was just the minister of state for technology, but he's not.

He's also responsible for the money that goes into pure research- of the sort that won't be bringing products onto the market any time soon, but which illuminate the workings of the world around us. Is that being decided on a theological basis?

How goes the funding for the Royal Tyrell?

I hate to break this to you, but virtually all scientific advancement has been made by men who believed wholeheartedly in the precepts and dictates of one religion or another. There are damned few scientists over the last few centuries, regardless of their brilliance or accomplishments, who doubted the existence of God, and that the world was created according to God's will. Yet - SOMEHOW - they managed to do things like invent the steam turbine, the internal combustion engine, rockets, and nuclear fission. Virtually all the men in NASA who developed the tools to put men on the moon were generally devout Christians and Jews who went to church and temple every week.

[Alta4ever]

Oh goody, please do tell.

And besides, carbon dating is only good back about 50,000 years, which doesn't do much good when you are, for instance, looking at the leg bone of Homo erectus.

Just how many isotope testing techniques do you care to take on?

So you admit that problems exist within carbon dating?

[Oleg Bach]

Those men and woman who marry for life (Christians) are dispised and uncontrolable. Those who have a sense of what is right and wrong are dispised and are uncontrolable. Those who actually care about human diginity and feeding the poor are dispised and are also uncontrolable.

The attack on Christians is the same sort of attack that took place during a Zionist conference back in the late 1800s. A schism formed between two Jewish factions - those that wanted to attain Jewish security through political and monetary means - and those that wanted to wait for a messiah - who put their trust not in the material world but the spiritual world.

Those that were the spiritualist were in direct offence of the materialists...so the feud began and continues..because just like Christians these Jews would never fully submit to the rule and authority of the state - and Christians are now in the same boat - they will not submit - they are un-controlable and non-compliant to socio-political bull shit. It is not about Christians being resistant to science - it is about being resistant to the state - AND to some - science is the offical state religion combined with mammonism - the money cult...I say - kiss my rosey red butt...I love science and understand it - but my master is not YOU.

[ToadBrother]

I hate to break this to you, but virtually all scientific advancement has been made by men who believed wholeheartedly in the precepts and dictates of one religion or another.

Which is really quite irrelevant.

There are damned few scientists over the last few centuries, regardless of their brilliance or accomplishments, who doubted the existence of God, and that the world was created according to God's will.

Which is really quite irrelevant.

Yet - SOMEHOW - they managed to do things like invent the steam turbine, the internal combustion engine, rockets, and nuclear fission. Virtually all the men in NASA who developed the tools to put men on the moon were generally devout Christians and Jews who went to church and temple every week.

Which is really quite irrelevant.

I'm not talking about believing in God, I'm talking about you dishonestly equating Creationism and Christianity.

[ToadBrother]

Those men and woman who marry for life (Christians) are dispised and uncontrolable. Those who have a sense of what is right and wrong are dispised and are uncontrolable. Those who actually care about human diginity and feeding the poor are dispised and are also uncontrolable.

The attack on Christians is the same sort of attack that took place during a Zionist conference back in the late 1800s. A schism formed between two Jewish factions - those that wanted to attain Jewish security through political and monetary means - and those that wanted to wait for a messiah - who put their trust not in the material world but the spiritual world.

Those that were the spiritualist were in direct offence of the materialists...so the feud began and continues..because just like Christians these Jews would never fully submit to the rule and authority of the state - and Christians are now in the same boat - they will not submit - they are un-controlable and non-compliant to socio-political bull shit. It is not about Christians being resistant to science - it is about being resistant to the state - AND to some - science is the offical state religion combined with mammonism - the money cult...I say - kiss my rosey red butt...I love science and understand it - but my master is not YOU.

Your anti-semitism and anti-scientism make for a delightful duet, I'll say that.

[Oleg Bach]

Christ never once mentioned creationism - It was a given - old testimonial writings have nothing to do with Christianity...Christ was a logical thinker - and a person that fully understood the natural world (science) - so what's the problem here?

[ToadBrother]

So you admit that problems exist within carbon dating?

There are factors that have to be taken into account. But then again, that applies to pretty much all measuring techniques. If by "problem" you mean "is useless and produces false results" then you're completely wrong, if by "problems" you mean "there are situations in which it is not an appropriate technique" then you're right. But carbon dating, as I said, is only of limited utility in evolutionary biology, since there is at least 3.9 billion years of history of life on this planet, and carbon dating is only particularly useful for the very smallest fraction of that period of time. Fortunately, there are other isotope dating techniques out there that can pretty much take us back to the origins of the planet.

[ToadBrother]

Christ never once mentioned creationism - It was a given - old testimonial writings have nothing to do with Christianity...Christ was a logical thinker - and a person that fully understood the natural world (science) - so what's the problem here?

You're quite right, Christ never mentioned it. The Bible is not a science text, and attempting to use it as one is foolhardy, to say the least.

[Alta4ever]

Which is really quite irrelevant.

I'm not talking about believing in God, I'm talking about you dishonestly equating Creationism and Christianity.

Actually this is quite relavant because you are attacking Mr. Goodyears religious beleifs. Mr.goodyears views on how the world came into existance are based and part od his religious belfeifs, even though you seem to be unable to comrehend that.

[waldo]

Actaully waldorf if you will read that artical and listen to the charles adler program on it, you will find that the professor does not have right leanings, but whatever waldorf. keep schreeching and ranting putz.

oh, I see... when you're asked for an example in regards your statement

Go and apply for job at any research university and if you tow the right part line or share their beleifs good luck getting a job.

and you give that example... which is now proved as a bogus example... you didn't mean to imply the example related to the "right part(y) line" you referenced. Thanks for clarifying, further.

[Alta4ever]

There are factors that have to be taken into account. But then again, that applies to pretty much all measuring techniques. If by "problem" you mean "is useless and produces false results" then you're completely wrong, if by "problems" you mean "there are situations in which it is not an appropriate technique" then you're right. But carbon dating, as I said, is only of limited utility in evolutionary biology, since there is at least 3.9 billion years of history of life on this planet, and carbon dating is only particularly useful for the very smallest fraction of that period of time. Fortunately, there are other isotope dating techniques out there that can pretty much take us back to the origins of the planet.

Yet it wa used and touted as evidence for years, how long until we find problems in the current dating methodes and have to find new ones?

Science is about expanding knowelge and challenging boundries, this means that theories that we have must be challenged and changed, and most religious people I know what the science to be done because they beleive that it will vindicate them and their belief in god. So to use relgion as a reson to deny someone a postition is bigotry.

[benny]

You're quite right, Christ never mentioned it. The Bible is not a science text, and attempting to use it as one is foolhardy, to say the least.

For Christ love is the best method for searching Truth.

[ToadBrother]

Actually this is quite relavant because you are attacking Mr. Goodyears religious beleifs. Mr.goodyears views on how the world came into existance are based and part od his religious belfeifs, even though you seem to be unable to comrehend that.

If someone thinks that evolution didn't happen because of his religious beliefs, then yes, I guess I'm attacking his religious beliefs. Religious beliefs aren't some magical kind of belief that allows one to escape critical analysis by others. If one advocates a religious view that flies in the face of science, then that religious view gets attacked. It's really no different than some Mullah saying "It's God's will that woman be denied the right to vote". Since he is invoking a religious opinion, I'm afraid I'm going to have to attack his religious belief.

But I'll repeat, it is Goodyear who made this a religious debate. Evolution is not a religious statement, it is a scientific theory. If Goodyear didn't want his religious beliefs put under the microscope, he shouldn't have essentially equated Christianity (a rather large and hardly heterogeneous set of sects) with some sort of anti-evolutionary stance.

[DrGreenthumb]

Oh goody, please do tell.

And besides, carbon dating is only good back about 50,000 years, which doesn't do much good when you are, for instance, looking at the leg bone of Homo erectus.

Just how many isotope testing techniques do you care to take on?

I guess as long as its accurate to 6000 years it should be able to tell us the age of evrything in the universe tho, right?? heheh

[Alta4ever]

If someone thinks that evolution didn't happen because of his religious beliefs, then yes, I guess I'm attacking his religious beliefs. Religious beliefs aren't some magical kind of belief that allows one to escape critical analysis by others. If one advocates a religious view that flies in the face of science, then that religious view gets attacked. It's really no different than some Mullah saying "It's God's will that woman be denied the right to vote". Since he is invoking a religious opinion, I'm afraid I'm going to have to attack his religious belief.

But I'll repeat, it is Goodyear who made this a religious debate. Evolution is not a religious statement, it is a scientific theory. If Goodyear didn't want his religious beliefs put under the microscope, he shouldn't have essentially equated Christianity (a rather large and hardly heterogeneous set of sects) with some sort of anti-evolutionary stance.

So then you admit to being a bigot.

[ToadBrother]

Yet it wa used and touted as evidence for years, how long until we find problems in the current dating methodes and have to find new ones?

It is evidence. What the f*** is wrong with you? Are you illiterate, or just intentionally dense. Carbon dating is useful for organic materials dating back about 50,000 years. There are certain conditions, which scientists are well aware of, that can skew carbon dating, which is why it isn't always the best technique. This is rather like saying "Hammers are useless" because they make poor screwdrivers.

Science is about expanding knowelge and challenging boundries, this means that theories that we have must be challenged and changed, and most religious people I know what the science to be done because they beleive that it will vindicate them and their belief in god. So to use relgion as a reson to deny someone a postition is bigotry.

Science is about finding the best *natural* explanations for phenomena. It is a naturalistic methodology. It's pretty clear you have little real understanding of what science is, it's history, or the areas in which it can be used, and the areas it can't. What's more, you still seem to be spreading the lie that Christianity is somehow in opposition to evolution.

[Argus]

And the big lie is told once again. This isn't about Christianity, since the major churches do not reject evolution.

Drivel. Of course it's about Christianity. By mocking and ridiculing people who believe, as the Bible says, that the world was created by God, you're mocking and ridiculing all devout Christians. This isn't about the political scheme of teaching "creationism" or "creation science" in schools or anything. It's about a Christian, who apparently wasn't quick enough to distance himself from one of the tenets of his religion which the Lefties find open to ridicule. Do note that there is not a single article of faith from any other religion which the lefties have ever or will ever mock or ridicule regardless of what position adherents hold. If we had a Muslim or Sikh minister - whose religion clearly states that God created the universe, there isn't a journalist in Canada who would have the balls to question him or her on it with regard to their fitnesss to hold any office in the land.

[Oleg Bach]

God is nature . Nature is science and this science proves the existance of God and shows clearly natural life sustaining law.

[ToadBrother]

So then you admit to being a bigot.

No I don't. Rejecting moronic ideas is not bigotry. If this guy wishes to have religious beliefs in defiance of reality, then it is hardly bigotry to point out the ludicrousness of his ideas. And no less than St. Augustine agrees with me:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

[DrGreenthumb]

It is evidence. What the f*** is wrong with you? Are you illiterate, or just intentionally dense. Carbon dating is useful for organic materials dating back about 50,000 years. There are certain conditions, which scientists are well aware of, that can skew carbon dating, which is why it isn't always the best technique. This is rather like saying "Hammers are useless" because they make poor screwdrivers.

Science is about finding the best *natural* explanations for phenomena. It is a naturalistic methodology. It's pretty clear you have little real understanding of what science is, it's history, or the areas in which it can be used, and the areas it can't. What's more, you still seem to be spreading the lie that Christianity is somehow in opposition to evolution.

I still think its pretty funny to me a bigot against Christians when I am a Christian. Kind of like saying Dr Dre a racist for calling Snoop his nigga.

[ToadBrother]

Drivel. Of course it's about Christianity. By mocking and ridiculing people who believe, as the Bible says, that the world was created by God, you're mocking and ridiculing all devout Christians. This isn't about the political scheme of teaching "creationism" or "creation science" in schools or anything. It's about a Christian, who apparently wasn't quick enough to distance himself from one of the tenets of his religion which the Lefties find open to ridicule. Do note that there is not a single article of faith from any other religion which the lefties have ever or will ever mock or ridicule regardless of what position adherents hold. If we had a Muslim or Sikh minister - whose religion clearly states that God created the universe, there isn't a journalist in Canada who would have the balls to question him or her on it with regard to their fitnesss to hold any office in the land.

Why do you keep lying? Major branches of Christianity do not debate the reality of evolution. Creationism in specific, and Biblical literalism in general, are not default positions of Christianity.

Christianity is not opposed to evolution, certain literalistic sects are. For goodness sakes, the Vatican just held a conference on evolution.

[jdobbin]

God is nature . Nature is science and this science proves the existance of God and shows clearly natural life sustaining law.

Dog is God spelled backwards.