We live in Texas, and we wear these to lunch at a country restaurant (Cotton Patch) right down the road from a megachurch at about 12:15pm on Sundays. It’s fun.

ROTFL!
Classic – & may I add very ballsy! Do they give you a good response!?;-)

“My girlfriend owns a shirt that reads:

We live in Texas, and we wear these to lunch at a country restaurant (Cotton Patch) right down the road from a megachurch at about 12:15pm on Sundays. It’s fun.”

Classic!

And very gutsy too I may add!

Get a good reaction?

Folks I know I’ve sometimes posted some strong opinions but I believe I’ve always been polite and rational & I do NOT believe in letting “sacred cows” or any mythical “right” certain folks seem to have that they (or anyone) has some kind of right to see nothing that they may disagree with or be offended by ..

I think I’ve kept things within the bounds of this blog. If the Bad Astronomer or one of his key moderators disagrees with my asessment of this then please could you let me know and discuss it reasonably with me.

I do try to do the right thing here.

“Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.
You may want to contact the blog admin via e-mail to notify him.”

& sometimes a code to type in thingummy too … Is something up? Some commenst I tried to post on another thread earlier – non-political ones & all too – were also initially “awaiting moderation” then disappeared .. Am I in trouble here or something?

Is this going to appear and stay appeared?

…. Guess I’m about to find out. here’s hopinbg (& cut & pasting)

If someone out there does know what’s up can you please at least have the courtesy of letting me know & give me achance to clear up any misunderstanding or confusion there may be?

a.k.a. StevoR

“Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.
You may want to contact the blog admin via e-mail to notify him.”

What the blazes??

BTW. What’s with the new enter-a-code after submitting thing & am I in some kinda trouble here?

Junco, I’ve read the ‘Intelligent Thought’ book. Good stuff it was. I also found Smolin’s essay to be quite interesting.

and you cared enough about to comment, so pull your head out.

Remember, I’m not aiming at actually comparing the evolution of stars with evolution of species.

It allows me an entry, as you point out, “to understand the scientific method”

Since the phylostogen (spelling?) / oxidation debate dealt with chemistry, that’s not exactly a debate about evolution, is it? And it raises the question: Why *shouldn’t* evolution and ID be handled the same way?

The important thing is that *science is a method of investigation.* That point must be emphasized. If it is not, then we are right back to where we were when Galan was the text in anatomy, and instructors demanded their student pay more attention to their books than the corpse they were dissecting.

It’s my opinion that it’s far more important for people to understand the scientific method than a laundry list of facts. Have it out, hammer and tong. If we really love science, then we should engage people’s minds by demonstrating the scientific method.

But at any point in that debate did one side or the other begin to doubt that evolution occurred at all?

This is what a creationist would seize upon under the “Teach the Controversy” doctrine. There’s debate about the exact chemical mechanisms, the precise morphologies, the taxonomic trees, the timeframes — but a creationist takes those uncertainties and, to a generally scientifically feeble public, falsely represents them as doubts within the scientific community that evolution is a viable theory AT ALL.

Of course, that’s a broad simplification and doesn’t cover all the various forms. But the general pattern starts with hydrogen and goes down through the periodic table as that hydrogen’s fused into helium and so on.

The point is you don’t have a lot of pure hydrogen stars until one develops some sort of stellar genetic code that allows it to fuse helium. A hydrogen star that’s heavy enough will fuse helium. No survival of the species required.

Not only does it look super-cool, but it stirs up a great conversation with creationists when they question it, as has happened on several occasions when I’ve deliberately worn it in order to take the fight towards them.

Thins about the significance of something that is derived from basic mathematics that they are utterly unable to deny.

Add to that:

just like Evolution:

1: we don’t see all of the transitional forms, but increasingly, we are
closing the gaps

2: The timeframes are enormously long

3: The evidence is there for anyone to verify.

4: Young Earth (and by extension Young Universe)creationists, have yet
to come up with a better interpretation, and nor could they derive the
H-R diagram without a basic understanding of the maths.

That’s THEIR problem.