Think Science .

Speciation is far more than the result of adapting to environments. It involves mutations in the genome of a population which make them reproductively incompatible with concurrent populations from a common progenitor. (Yes… Environmental adaptations require genetic changes also. However… These are of often the result of changes in gene expression and gene repression. NOT, true mutation to the genome of the species.)

Populations of Humans have never been so reproductively isolated from populations of other humans… for a long enough period of time… for the restrictions in their genetic base to accumulate the number of genetic mutation as to make them reproductively incompatible with other Humans, and therefore be a unique species.

The Races of Homo sapiens sapiens, are more akin to the variations in domesticated animals. Canines have far shorter life spans and have undergone more generations for the time that Humans began to breed them, than have H. sapiens sapiens. Yet…
All breeds of dogs are able to successfully reproduce with others. As they can with wolves and coyotes. Why??

Because there had never been complete reproductive isolation.

H. spaiens sapiens were able to successfully reproduce with H. spaiens neanderthalensis…Who possessed far greater genetic differences and specific environmental adaptations, than do the various Races of Human extant in the World today.

Here is one rant for straight line “A straight line is an arc of circle whose radius is Infinite”. Infinity as a mathematical concept is a tool used to get around limitations of euclidean geometry. Nothing more. Radius is incomplete without defining the centre of that circle.

Example of “a straight line is an arc of a circle with an infinite radius” while correct is essentially meaningless when the inverse “an arc of a circle is defined as an infinite number of straight lines” is taken into account.

All we are doing is highlighting the limitations of euclidean geometry… Nothing new or groundbreaking there… that’s why we have non-euclidean geometry to begin with.

After over 20 years of collecting data and running models, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has been forced to conclude the claim that “Global Climate Change” is the result of industrial carbon emissions is baseless. All the “Carbon Emission” models and predictions proposed by “Global Climate Change” experts have been directly contradicted by observational data.

MIT’s study concluded that methane emissions, not carbon emissions, are the main culprit for “Global Warming”. While the source of this additional methane is as of yet unclear, it is important to note that the main sources of atmospheric methane are wetlands and rice patties… both of which are being substantially increased worldwide… wetlands due to environmental concerns, and rice patties in an attempt to address global food requirements.

Methane is normally “scrubbed” from the atmosphere by hydroxyl, but it appears that hydroxyl levels in the atmosphere may be decreasing.

MIT states that it is unclear whether this is a long-term trend or a self-correcting anomaly. Atmospheric data collections are already underway to determine exactly where this additional methane is coming from.

On one hand, one may argue that it would be no better, rationaly speaking, if people just took theory of evolution as a new dogma. But I think it would be a difference anyway. Creationism is an actively subvertive movement that will combat public comprehension of how science works in order to present their quasi science as real science.

Creationism isn’t just a perception. It isn’t just a dogma. It’s a well funded and active movement to influence polititicians to actively avoid scientific questions being answerable to scientific standards. If only one generation kicked creationism out the window, I think creationism would have a hard time digging itself out of the mythology graveyard.

For theists, it is harder to embrace scientific standards because (like math) you cannot control the bottom line. You can’t bring your desired answer to the table and beforehand make sure that it will survive the objective scrutiny of the process. If you learn what good rational standards are, the theist will have to admit that his/her own religious affiliation is the result of, mildly speaking, dubious standards.

To many, this means that the standards is the problem and that they are evil. That’s why I think that science class should teach standards, not just content.

In order to obtain any real knowledge, it is important that we accept that some things are impossible. People often get into trouble because they are under the false assumption that anything is possible. It is not.

Allow me to demonstrate using the proposition “The cow jumped over the moon”.

Example 1: Theist’s viewpoint.

Q: Did the cow jump over the moon?
P1: A book claims the cow jumped over the moon.
P2: The book claims the book tells no lies.
C: Therefore, the cow jumped over the moon.

Example 2: Agnostic’s viewpoint.

Q: Is it logically possible for the cow to jump over the moon?
P1: The cow can jump.
P2: The moon orbits over the cow.
C: There is no logical contradiction to a cow jumping over the moon.

Example 3: Atheist’s viewpoint.

Q: Does it make sense for a cow to jump over the moon?
P1: Cows can only jump a few feet high.
P2: The moon is miles above.
C: The cow cannot jump over the moon.

Atheists are the only people who truly stand a chance to find the truth. Because we accept that some things are impossible. I know these examples are rather simplistic. The reason behind this is to communicate that the search for truth need not be complicated. All it really takes is that we limit our premises and conclusion to something that actually makes sense.