GOP Congressman: evolution is lie from Hell

[andy7171]

Republicans have their own version of the Guam guy!

[D1B]

Right but I'll take a guess without even looking it up...
This guy has not been given the Chair Position of a committee
YES: He is sadly and pathetically getting re-elected by somebody - so congratulations to him
but the Party leaders haven't given him a position of Authority over a committee RIGHT..?

Cleets. Seriously.

You're up in arms about who is on a useless House committee? It's a HOUSE committee. Only slightly less toothless than a neighborhood association in a trailer park.

There are only a few Congressional committees that have any play at all. If you want to be outraged, go look at the House finance committee. It's all a joke. Fortunately for us, Congress has little say over much of anything, and they have long abrogated their responsibilities where they could actually make a difference. Regardless of the damage Obama has done to the executive-legislative relationship, I can't honestly say that I would want a House that actually CAN get anything done. They're better off inept and unable.

Sad but true.

[Chizzang]

Right but I'll take a guess without even looking it up...
This guy has not been given the Chair Position of a committee
YES: He is sadly and pathetically getting re-elected by somebody - so congratulations to him
but the Party leaders haven't given him a position of Authority over a committee RIGHT..?

Cleets. Seriously.

You're up in arms about who is on a useless House committee? It's a HOUSE committee. Only slightly less toothless than a neighborhood association in a trailer park.

There are only a few Congressional committees that have any play at all. If you want to be outraged, go look at the House finance committee. It's all a joke. Fortunately for us, Congress has little say over much of anything, and they have long abrogated their responsibilities where they could actually make a difference. Regardless of the damage Obama has done to the executive-legislative relationship, I can't honestly say that I would want a House that actually CAN get anything done. They're better off inept and unable.

This is more about the statement it makes about who we are...
A nation who's politically organized Science Committees are CHAIRED by buffoons who think the world is a few thousand years old when you can carbon date a piece of lava sitting by the highway and get 50,000 year readings...

There are pieces of ice on file in Greenland science lockers that easily date to 30 thousand years old...

And we've got a CHAIRMAN of a Science Committee - the fucking chairman - who doesn't even know that "The infallible word of God" for which he bases all of his scientific knowledge on has been re-written more times than Ronald Reagan's political revisionist track history...

you (and John) should be writing your congressman in shame

[CID1990]

Cleets. Seriously.

You're up in arms about who is on a useless House committee? It's a HOUSE committee. Only slightly less toothless than a neighborhood association in a trailer park.

There are only a few Congressional committees that have any play at all. If you want to be outraged, go look at the House finance committee. It's all a joke. Fortunately for us, Congress has little say over much of anything, and they have long abrogated their responsibilities where they could actually make a difference. Regardless of the damage Obama has done to the executive-legislative relationship, I can't honestly say that I would want a House that actually CAN get anything done. They're better off inept and unable.

This is more about the statement it makes about who we are...
A nation who's politically organized Science Committees are CHAIRED by buffoons who think the world is a few thousand years old when you can carbon date a piece of lava sitting by the highway and get 50,000 year readings...

There are pieces of ice on file in Greenland science lockers that easily date to 30 thousand years old...

And we've got a CHAIRMAN of a Science Committee - the **** chairman - who doesn't even know that "The infallible word of God" for which he bases all of his scientific knowledge on has been re-written more times than Ronald Reagan's political revisionist track history...

you (and John) should be writing your congressman in shame

Well I have seriously overestimated you, Clitz. If you think that there is anyone in this country where all if the following characteristics exist in the same person:

1) substantive subject matter knowledge in (insert applicable congressional committee here).

2) desire to advance the fortunes of the United States

3) understanding of what is and what is not an appropriate function of government

4) ability to win a state election

5) common sense and self worth

If you truly believe all if these can exist in the same person, then you are not half the realist I thought you were.

Riddle me this: you are party leadership in the House. Where do you send the real basket cases so they can do the least harm? Science would be high on the list, followed by hell I don't know.... arts and crafts? When the smartest people you have to work with only have half a brain, you send those folks to finance, ways and means, justice and the rest just trickle down. Again, it is a zero sum game anyway. The House is just a panacea to the states anyway... a way to apportion federal funds and nothing more. Oh, and free.... never mind don't want to get myself in trouble there.

Dude I really think you are losing it, or somebody got your password.

Would YOU run for Congress? Would you associate with anyone who could seriously consider it AND have a shot at winning? Come on, man get with the program. I will help you.

[Chizzang]

Never assume that I'm actually angry
Dumbfounded yes - angry no
And you know that I believe a desire to be a lawyer or a politician reveals a flaw in one's general character

[CID1990]

Never assume that I'm actually angry
Dumbfounded yes - angry no
And you know that I believe a desire to be a lawyer or a politician reveals a flaw in one's general character

Well there you go, then. Don't get hung up on which idiot is on what committee.

[Chizzang]

Never assume that I'm actually angry
Dumbfounded yes - angry no
And you know that I believe a desire to be a lawyer or a politician reveals a flaw in one's general character

Well there you go, then. Don't get hung up on which idiot is on what committee.

Of course in about two months I'll be focused on anything and everything but politics

Meanwhile I get to be "outraged" and deeply saddened by American politics
I'm like Rush Limbaugh in that regard - we're very similar only he's a drug addict

[89Hen]

I'm like Rush Limbaugh

[JohnStOnge]

you can carbon date a piece of lava sitting by the highway and get 50,000 year readings...

I know I shouldn't do this but:

How do you empirically validate the accuracy of carbon dating over a 50,000 year time period?

Before you answer, realize that if you say you're going to validate it with some other method that dates things over a 50,000 year time period I'm going to ask you how THAT method can be empirically validated over a 50,000 year time period.

In a way I hate to say stuff like this because I pretty much believe the Universe is billions of years old and the Earth is like 5 billion years old. But I think sometimes we need to be reminded that NOTHING we do in order to make determinations like that can POSSIBLY be empirically validated. It's all based on the assumption that what we see transpire over the periods and distances we can experience holds true beyond them.

No, we don't know of any reason why things should be any different beyond the periods and distances we can experience. But that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't. And until you actually empirically demonstrate that the model you're using to describe things actually describes things there is doubt.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, I am a sociobiology adherent (see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... ciobiology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for one reasonable description). That's the way I personally look at things.

But I think that sometimes people get too "goo goo eyed" about "science." They take whatever they see that comes from the world of "science" as it is practiced by scientTISTS of a particular time as Gospel. They don't think about what it would take to actually empirically confirm that much of what is taken as Gospel is true.

They take it on faith.

[Chizzang]

you can carbon date a piece of lava sitting by the highway and get 50,000 year readings...

I know I shouldn't do this but:

How do you empirically validate the accuracy of carbon dating over a 50,000 year time period?

Before you answer, realize that if you say you're going to validate it with some other method that dates things over a 50,000 year time period I'm going to ask you how THAT method can be empirically validated over a 50,000 year time period.

In a way I hate to say stuff like this because I pretty much believe the Universe is billions of years old and the Earth is like 5 billion years old. But I think sometimes we need to be reminded that NOTHING we do in order to make determinations like that can POSSIBLY be empirically validated. It's all based on the assumption that what we see transpire over the periods and distances we can experience holds true beyond them.

No, we don't know of any reason why things should be any different beyond the periods and distances we can experience. But that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't. And until you actually empirically demonstrate that the model you're using to describe things actually describes things there is doubt.

So...
Yeah okay I see you don't understand the technology so I'll explain it to you
So sample contamination is the primary problem with C14 dating
But items that we know the dates on (the exact dates on) like wooden crates with build dates carved in them from Rome or Greece can be sampled

Unless the guy who built the crate or dated artifact was lying - we have a pretty good measuring stick

So with stunning accuracy carbon dating matches dated artifacts with 1 % in may cases depending on the quality of the sample...

So yeah... There's artifacts from the The Xia Dynasty in China that are hand dated by Emperor Taikang himself and the carbon process came up - in a test - within 5 years and that's 4,500 years ago

Cabon Dating / Tested and accurate / old news

[BlueHen86]

BTW, I am a sociobiology adherent (see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... ciobiology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for one reasonable description). That's the way I personally look at things.

But I think that sometimes people get too "goo goo eyed" about "science." They take whatever they see that comes from the world of "science" as it is practiced by scientTISTS of a particular time as Gospel. They don't think about what it would take to actually empirically confirm that much of what is taken as Gospel is true.

They take it on faith.

And I think you get too critical of science. Someone takes the time to come up with a theory and test it and all you do it criticise their methods.

You don't offer a better way, or have any counter theory, you just know they are wrong.

You are an armchair scientist.

[SeattleGriz]

BTW, I am a sociobiology adherent (see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... ciobiology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for one reasonable description). That's the way I personally look at things.

But I think that sometimes people get too "goo goo eyed" about "science." They take whatever they see that comes from the world of "science" as it is practiced by scientTISTS of a particular time as Gospel. They don't think about what it would take to actually empirically confirm that much of what is taken as Gospel is true.

They take it on faith.

And I think you get too critical of science. Someone takes the time to come up with a theory and test it and all you do it criticise their methods.

You don't offer a better way, or have any counter theory, you just know they are wrong.

You are an armchair scientist.

And your curriculum vitae to make such statements?

[BlueHen86]

And I think you get too critical of science. Someone takes the time to come up with a theory and test it and all you do it criticise their methods.

You don't offer a better way, or have any counter theory, you just know they are wrong.

You are an armchair scientist.

And your curriculum vitae to make such statements?

I'm an engineer. I make science relevant.

[SeattleGriz]

And your curriculum vitae to make such statements?

I'm an engineer. I make science relevant.

If you are actually a real engineer and not of the custodial variety, then you work in the harder sciences and I could understand your belief. But just because John points out that somethings cannot be truly proven without a doubt does not mean he doesn't like science. I am not here to back John up, because he can handle his own, I just happen to be of the same belief.

Funny how scientists hide behind the old, "that's how science works, we'll improve" statement when things are proven wrong, but rarely extend that to anyone who brings forth an idea they don't like.

[BlueHen86]

I'm an engineer. I make science relevant.

If you are actually a real engineer and not of the custodial variety, then you work in the harder sciences and I could understand your belief. But just because John points out that somethings cannot be truly proven without a doubt does not mean he doesn't like science. I am not here to back John up, because he can handle his own, I just happen to be of the same belief.

Funny how scientists hide behind the old, "that's how science works, we'll improve" statement when things are proven wrong, but rarely extend that to anyone who brings forth an idea they don't like.

It's not that JSO criticizes some studies - it seems like he criticizes every study. It's predictable. Somebody comes on here and posts the results of the study, and JSO comes on and posts how the study is flawed. And then I come on here and post about JSO.

FWIW - I have a BS in Civil Engineering.

[Chizzang]

I'm an engineer. I make science relevant.

If you are actually a real engineer and not of the custodial variety, then you work in the harder sciences and I could understand your belief. But just because John points out that somethings cannot be truly proven without a doubt does not mean he doesn't like science. I am not here to back John up, because he can handle his own, I just happen to be of the same belief.

Funny how scientists hide behind the old, "that's how science works, we'll improve" statement when things are proven wrong, but rarely extend that to anyone who brings forth an idea they don't like.

This thread is about The Chairman of the House Science Committee thinking the world is 6 thousand years old because (some version) of The Bible says so...

We have accurately dated Core Ice Samples sitting around for pretty much anybody to take a look at all over the place / that show we have glaciers older than that

Carbon dating has been PROVEN to be as accurate as the quality of the sample...
Good sample / Accurate Date = every time

It's called Science
and it's not in the Bible

[BlueHen86]

If you are actually a real engineer and not of the custodial variety, then you work in the harder sciences and I could understand your belief. But just because John points out that somethings cannot be truly proven without a doubt does not mean he doesn't like science. I am not here to back John up, because he can handle his own, I just happen to be of the same belief.

Funny how scientists hide behind the old, "that's how science works, we'll improve" statement when things are proven wrong, but rarely extend that to anyone who brings forth an idea they don't like.

This thread is about The Chairman of the House Science Committee thinking the world is 6 thousand years old because (some version) of The Bible says so...

We have accurately dated Core Ice Samples sitting around for pretty much anybody to take a look at all over the place / that show we have glaciers older than that

Carbon dating has been PROVEN to be as accurate as the quality of the sample...
Good sample / Accurate Date = every time

It's called Science
and it's not in the Bible

Well then it must be wrong, because the Bible is thousands of years old, has been translated hundreds of times and much of it was written by people who didn't witness the events that they were writting about.

[houndawg]

This thread is about The Chairman of the House Science Committee thinking the world is 6 thousand years old because (some version) of The Bible says so...

We have accurately dated Core Ice Samples sitting around for pretty much anybody to take a look at all over the place / that show we have glaciers older than that

Carbon dating has been PROVEN to be as accurate as the quality of the sample...
Good sample / Accurate Date = every time

It's called Science
and it's not in the Bible

Well then it must be wrong, because the Bible is thousands of years old, has been translated hundreds of times and much of it was written by people who didn't witness the events that they were writting about.

I think JSO would agree that there is no proof that Jesus was a real person.

[andy7171]

FWIW - I have a BS in Civil Engineering.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU[/youtube]

[89Hen]

It's not that JSO criticizes some studies - it seems like he criticizes every study. It's predictable. Somebody comes on here and posts the results of the study, and JSO comes on and posts how the study is flawed. And then I come on here and post about JSO.

FWIW - I have a BS in Civil Engineering.

FWIW, most studies have an agenda before the scientific process begins. I have seen very few truly independent studies.

[Chizzang]

It's not that JSO criticizes some studies - it seems like he criticizes every study. It's predictable. Somebody comes on here and posts the results of the study, and JSO comes on and posts how the study is flawed. And then I come on here and post about JSO.

FWIW - I have a BS in Civil Engineering.

FWIW, most studies have an agenda before the scientific process begins. I have seen very few truly independent studies.

Agreed...
Sometimes that agenda is "Finding the truth" or "Discovery"
other times it's "getting funding"

it's usually fairly easy to spot the motives

[SeattleGriz]

If you are actually a real engineer and not of the custodial variety, then you work in the harder sciences and I could understand your belief. But just because John points out that somethings cannot be truly proven without a doubt does not mean he doesn't like science. I am not here to back John up, because he can handle his own, I just happen to be of the same belief.

Funny how scientists hide behind the old, "that's how science works, we'll improve" statement when things are proven wrong, but rarely extend that to anyone who brings forth an idea they don't like.

This thread is about The Chairman of the House Science Committee thinking the world is 6 thousand years old because (some version) of The Bible says so...

We have accurately dated Core Ice Samples sitting around for pretty much anybody to take a look at all over the place / that show we have glaciers older than that

Carbon dating has been PROVEN to be as accurate as the quality of the sample...
Good sample / Accurate Date = every time

It's called Science
and it's not in the Bible

I got the point of the thread and don't agree with the, "Earth is six thousand years old" belief. I actually don't concern myself with how old the Earth is because it doesn't change anything for me.

Have you read how a couple of scientists are speculating that solar neutrinos are actually changing the rate of decay? The rate of decay is supposed to be constant.

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases ... rning.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Physicist Ernest Rutherford, known as the father of nuclear physics, in the 1930s conducted experiments indicating the radioactive decay rate is constant, meaning it cannot be altered by external influences.

"Since neutrinos have essentially no mass or charge, the idea that they could be interacting with anything is foreign to physics," Jenkins said. "So, we are saying something that doesn't interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed. Either neutrinos are affecting decay rate or perhaps an unknown particle is."

Jenkins discovered the effect by chance in 2006, when he was watching television coverage of astronauts spacewalking at the International Space Station. A solar flare had erupted and was thought to possibly pose a threat to the astronauts. He decided to check his equipment and discovered that a change in decay-rate had preceded the solar flare.

Interesting stuff, especially since it could be used to predict solar flares.

[JohnStOnge]

And I think you get too critical of science. Someone takes the time to come up with a theory and test it and all you do it criticise their methods.

You don't offer a better way, or have any counter theory, you just know they are wrong.

You are an armchair scientist.

Actually I"m an applied scientist. And once in a while I get involved in research because research scientists ask for my assistance then stick me on the paper as a co-author.

If you really look at what I say, you will see that I always explain why I have a problem with certain things. And it usually has something to do with the rule about only being able to infer cause and effect via controlled experimentation. This is a little different. It's about validating models.

Sometimes there is no "better way." All I'm saying is that there is a need to realize that there are uncertainties introduced by the difficulty of the situation. I think the the general public just tends to think that if ideas are the consensus opinion of scientists in a certain field those things are etched in stone truth. Like when people say the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I have tremendous respect for the people making those estimates and the techniques they use to do it. But I'm saying there's no way to determine whether they are correct or not. No way to validate.

[JohnStOnge]

Yeah okay I see you don't understand the technology so I'll explain it to you
So sample contamination is the primary problem with C14 dating
But items that we know the dates on (the exact dates on) like wooden crates with build dates carved in them from Rome or Greece can be sampled

I understand the basic principle. And I know that it has been validated with things like wooden crates from Rome or Greece. If you know ages of objects through other means through records kept since the dawn of civilization you can test carbon dating and validate for the ages represented by those objects. So like if you could take the original paper the US Constitution was written on and you'd know the exact age of that paper. And you could carbon date it and see how close you come. And that would be a validation point.

But can you do that with something you think is 50,000 years old?

I'll give you an example of something where we do know there's a reason why you can't extend beyond the range of observations that can be validated to illustrate the principle.

Say you're studying the rate at which a certain bacteria grows on a certain media at different temperatures. You do an experiment where you check the growth rate at intervals of 10 degrees F from 40 up to 100. And you get a nice relationship such that as the temperature increases the growth rate increases. And you develop a model to predict the growth rate based on temperature.

It'll work fine for the range of temperatures 40 to 100. But at some point above 100 it'll get too hot for the organism and it will die off. And at some point below 40 it won't grow at all so reducing the temperature further won't make a difference.

The idea is that once you get outside of the range of "conditions" that you have actually tested you have to recognize that the "model" you have developed won't hold up.

I realize that there are times when, as a practical matter, we can say we know. Like if the bacteria in the scenario I described start to die at 120 F I think it's safe to say they'll die at 1200 F. I think it's safe to say that water will be in gaseous form at 1200 F or 120,000 F or 1,200,000 F so they can't survive. That sort of thing.

But to me that's different than assuming we know how things behave over what we call distances of a billion light years or over time frames of 60,000, 600,000, 6,000,000, or 6,000,000,000 years. We have not empirically confirmed, for instance, that the decay rate of a radioactive isotope fits the model we have for it over 60,000 years. We may not have a reason for thinking it wouldn't. But that does not mean that there isn't a reason. And until we actually do an experiment in which we show that the decay rate of a radioactive isotope fits the model we have for that decay rate over 60,000 years we do not have experimental confirmation of that belief.