Just After Darwin Day...

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

You really have to feel sorry for kids living in the world's last remaining superpower, don't you?

I mean, it is not their fault that they get fed on junk food from Macdonalds that gives them an obesity problem, is it?
And now, people who are old enough to know better want to bring in legislation that will ' teach the controversy' in schools, and develope their 'critical thinking'... yeah, right !!!

Oh, before I forget, have a link:-
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/02/11/%E2%80%98science-guy%E2%80%99-speaks-out-bill-nye-says-nay-to-anti-evolution-crusade-as-bills-pop-up-in-the-states/

Now, the obligatory opinion....

The fact is, there is no controversy regarding biological Evolution in science. Scientists are people who go into the field and into the lab and do their own original research and make their own discoveries and publish the findings for peer review among people well qualified in the same and in related fields, and the consensus among the scientific community is that the Earth is billions of years old and that our species has been around for a lot longer than the 6,000 years allowed for by a literal reading of the book of Genesis.

OTOH, Craetionists turn out overwhelmingly to be people who quotemine and misrepresent the findings of others, and then go on to copypaste the claims on Creationist websites. Rather than doing original research and making ground breaking discoveries like 'Lucy', the big names in Creationism, people like Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and Ken Ham simply sell their books and videos to make money off of a gullible audience. These websites, and the related books and videos advertsied thereon, are packed with misrepresentations and inaccuracies - and sadly, this is what some adult Americans actually believe to be true.

In a recent discussion on Facebook, the following comment was made-
Marcus Clark What they don't tell you is that "Lucy" is not only a compilation of bone fragments of multiple bodies but likely of multiple species. These bone fragments were also collected over a rather large area. By doing a little "digging" you'll find that "Lucy" is a total farce.

And this was cited as ' evidence'

Marcus Clark
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/x0714_lucy_fails_test.html
and
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm
and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0825lawrence.asp
...and
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/truthlucy.pdf
just to show a few.See more

However, as this crushing refutal shows, the original claim was misrepresentation - nobody claimed that the 1973 find was part of the Lucy skeleton, (except the creationists , of course) and the guy who discovered Lucy was quite clear that the knee joint find was from another individual, albeit of the same species - A aferensis.

Go take a look -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
Saturday at 12:53

Now, if this ever comes up in class, how many teachers of the creationist persuasion are going to show both sides of the case, and how many are going to do a good job in demolishing guys like Hovind, Ham and Gish? How many Creationists are actually honest?

It does not bode well for the future of the USA when an agenda driven by the Religious Right gets taught as fact in the classroom. I hope that American kids will get a good deal for once and that this legislation will be rejected for what it is, a cunning plot to bring Creationism into class - but I am a realist. I know how many Americans believe in Creationism, and that many of these will sit on School boards, and have a vote in State politics. People do have a right to be wrong if they choose, it goes with the turf in a democratic nation. However, I don't thiink that these people are making a choice that willbe good for their kids or their country's future if they allow Creationism into the class room.

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how you're using the term, but non-nutritious actually would be a fairly good description. Its a lot of calories and not a lot of other things you need. Humans need calories sure, but you need like a hamburger for a full day but other things with it. That's why its much more nutritious to get those same calories from other sources.

The worst part is the soda. The fries aint great.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

At almost any fast food restaurant a full day of vitamns and calories can easily be had.

It's no less nutritious than what most people serve at home.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

The fact that some people serve really shitty meals at home doesn't make fast food meals better for you.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/foods-from-mcdonalds/6220/2

A big mac is all the calories you should have at a meal. 590 calories. Just the sandwich, no fies, definitely no soda. However, it only has 6% of your vitamin A and 6% vitamin C. You would need to eat 5 and a half to get your full nutritional needs. That would put you way over your calorie intake.

This is the definition of non nutritious food.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/foods-from-wienerschnitzel/7124/2

A 12 Oz pepsi is a child's at a fast food place. It has nothing but calories. non nutritious. 150 calories

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/foods-from-mcdonalds/6235/2

French fries. 209 calories. Actually quite a bit(as in 1/7 daily intake) of vitamin A, but not great for anything else.

Full meal: 950 calories. You can have two of these meals in a day and you are way way way under for your nutritional intake. Definition of non nutritious food.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

First of all, your idealizing the way people should eat when it comes to fast food versus how they eat without it.

A 2000 calorie diet is way below an active lifestyle. So throw that out. Second, assuming you ate big macs for breakfast you'd have a point. At breakfast a glass of orange juice and a fruit cup will provide most of the other nutrition you need.

The mistake in criticizing fast food is people pick the bulk of the menu and act as if it's meant to be solely what a person eats.

I guarantee that if you cared to, you could easily eat healthy off of solely mcdonalds.

You think people who eat unhealthily at mcdonalds are suddenly going to eat healthy without it?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm giving an example of your average meal at a fast food place. if we take a fast food restaurant and then only measure a thing that nobody eats, we're not being very representative are we? No we are not.

A 2000 calorie diet is around average for an American. Even if you were to increase that to 3000, which would be someone who works all day in a strenuous job, your *way* over that amount in order to get your daily nutrition of vitamins.

So in conclusion. Fast food is non nutritious.

You think people who eat unhealthily at mcdonalds are suddenly going to eat healthy without it?

On this issue, I agree that people need to be better educated on food choices and consequences.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Fucking goddamned iPhone

basically you're acting as if people eat big macs for breakfast and 2500-3000 calories is okay for most Americans.

Want to guess how many calories and fat are in the most commonly eaten non-fast foods?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Oh there are plenty of equivalently terrible meals they have ready for breakfast.

You seem to be implying that I'm saying that fast food is the only bad food and I'm not. My point is that fast food is non-nutritious and that is it.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Fast food can provide all the nutrtion someone needs. Ergo it is nutritious n

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Now when we're talking about actual fast food: i.e. the majority of the stuff they sell. As I said before, to get the correct nutrition out of it, you're talking ~5000 or more calories.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Like hell. You're doing the same math as corn flake vendors.

"to get as much vitamin b12 you'd need to eat 18 Big Macs!"

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

aaaaand?