Blogs

Union chief says National Weather workers 'irate' after NOAA backs Trump's Alabama hurricane forecast

Dan Sobien, who heads the National Weather Service Employees Organization representing thousands of employees working under NOAA, told The Daily Beast in an interview on Friday that "never ever before has their management thrown them under the bus like this."

A retelling of a Comanche myth

One day Coyote was hungry, and was out looking for something to eat, when he met up with Skunk, who was also hungry. "I have an idea," said Coyote. "Will you help me trick some prairie dogs so we can eat them?"

This sounded good to Skunk, so he said, "What do you propose?"

Coyote explained, "The prairie dog village is just over the next hill. You go lie down and pretend to be dead, and I'll catch us some prairie dogs."

The refugees on my church’s cricket team

After summarizing the six problems and (very briefly) mentioning the ways scientists have met these challenges, Faulkner concludes,

In parts 1 and 2 I looked at Danny Faulkner's counterintuitive complaint that scientists are untrustworthy due to their willingness to revise their theories when new evidence warrants it. As an example, Faulkner lists six problems for Big Bang cosmology, then asks why scientists don't simply abandon this model.

The Myth of Consumer-Grade Security

In Part 1 I looked at Danny Faulkner's counterintuitive complaint that scientists are untrustworthy due to their willingness to revise their theories when new evidence warrants it. Faulkner lists six problems for Big Bang cosmology, then asks why scientists continue revising rather than simply abandoning this model.

Of all the creationist arguments against mainstream science, perhaps the most perplexing is the complaint that scientists are willing to modify their theories to account for new evidence. Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis, interviewed by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International, was blunt in describing his concerns with Big Bang cosmology.

Have we found the true cause of diabetes, stroke and Alzheimer's?

We learn very early the difference between random samples and non-representative samples.