that's not evidence, that's just applying religion logic (religion logic is lower on the scale of reliability than woman logic, which makes it harder to argue because the people using it are thinking even less rationally)
Well, you have to admit that they're right: science DOES change. But this is because human knowledge of the world is increasing, not because science is evil.
Also, I find it kind of funny that the Big Bang theory was once controversial because it implied the intervention of God.
There seems to be such a large misunderstanding of what intelligent design proponents believe here on digg. Believe it or not, there are many thousands of people with phd's in the science fields who will not believe that millions of species so dependent on each other miraculously evolved. At the same time, they still believe in the periodic table of the elements. The evidence for evolution cannot and will not ever be observed as it supposedly requires many millions of years. The strata are not as well defined as you may think and can be interpreted so many different ways. This is a far cry from something measurable like the molecular weight of Molybdenum. Believe it or not, evolution really is a THEORY.
I guess all these electron microscopes and centuries worth of research are nothing then. Of course the periodic table is just a theory, hasn't it always been that way?
Bury this *****. I cannot believe what I read. Of course we add new elements, or it changes. Humans don't know everything, its all in moderation. We discover some elements were going to add them retard.
Wasn't the Kansas evolution thing like 5 years ago? I believe in evolution but I also believe there are a lot of people who get off on looking down on evangelicals.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is "just a theory" too.
Refute the idea (evolution, climate change, gravity) if you wish, but hold it to the same scientific criterion and back up your objections with evidence. Rejecting a theory because it will affect your religious beliefs our our wallet isn't science, it's ideology.
(Please don't assume we're all anti-science, tree hugging frootloops.)
The periodic table they are referring to was obviously rearranged so it would be easier to understand and organized so that periodic trends are consistent. Chemistry is incredibly complex and thus to any non-educated religious fundamentalist it would seem false. I hope its a joke.
Hey, don't be too hard on Kansas. I moved here from Washington DC to go to college, and honestly I think that people know more about evolution here than in any other state. This is probably due to the fact that there was so much controversy about it that students ended up finding out more than they would otherwise. But Kansas is not "as stupid as you think"...well...western Kansas can be. But definitely not out east.
The site "re-discovery.org" almost doesn't even seem for real. If it is, it was written by some senile old kindergarten teacher who "dabbles" in science.
Let me break things down for you. This has been another thing that should not of hit the front page.
If you haven't noticed ideas grow, ideas change, ideas are reworked or added on to. the periodic table cannot be final, as scientists find more and more atoms, they add them the the table.
Next, yes scientists believe that helium and hydrogen may need to be shifted but its because of there electron configuration that matches both spots and as far as i remember from my days in chem some properties are alike in those spots as well. They react most like the ones they are in now though.
Another major thing that bothers me. You believe we should change it since as time went on, IT IMPROVED. The fact that they added a column or they used atomic number, was because at first not all scientific information is right in front of you. People must discover and therefore things improve.
And I'm quite sure those who have any common sense will agree, that this morosely conceived image is 100% (2% error) against scientific progression.
There has never been a "chemical periodicity theory", or at least if there ever were one it has been replaced by more accurate models, it is an obvious simplification and it's just a teaching tool to highlight that some basic elements in some ways share similar characteristics.
I remember this science fiction short story. They find the remains of a civilization but they can't decode their writing. Until they discover the periodic table in one of their classrooms.
Chemical periodicity is solely a construct that helps people group them together. In that sense, it's just an artificial construct. If you're going to attack creationists, please use a valid argument!!!!!!!!
I think young-earth creationists have a better argument than this chart does.
Excerpt from the re-Discovery Institute's site: "The moon rotates on its axis but at the same time always presents the same comforting face to us, gazing up from earth... The chances of that happening at random... exceed the probabombastic resources of the universe, proving the intervention of an intelligent agent."
Probabombastic?? What the crap? Looked it up in Webster's, no dice. Typed it into Google, and the only result? Yep, you guessed it. English diction: just a theory!