I didn't realize Wikipedia had a porn problem, but if the demand really is that high I guess I could volunteer to help add more.

-

The discontinuity showed a higher density of the inner core. It showed either a solid or a higher density liquid. The only way a rational person could take that as evidence for a hollow earth is if they completely misunderstood what they were reading about it.

Any idea of a hollow earth has been completely non-viable for a long time now, for at least as long as we knew there was magma below the crust. Molten rock is a liquid and even if some sort of hollow chamber could survive at that temperature, it would intensely float. The buoyant force would be equal to the weight of an equal volume of solid rock. A hollow space the size of the inner core would have a buoyant force of 26,000,000 Trillion tons. The chamber would float up with such incredible force that it would lift up the earth's crust and violently burst through with the energy of trillions of nuclear bombs. It would turn an entire continent into slag and exterminate almost all life on earth.

There is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute proof in science. The relevant standard in science is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And we have a multitude of evidence establishing beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth's core is iron. The list of substances with a density matching iron is a reasonably short list, centering on iron. The list of substances with a density matching iron, and capable of generating the observed magnetic field, is a very short list prominently featuring "iron". The list of substances with a density matching iron, and capable of generating a magnetic field, and which is even remotely plausible as the dominate composition of the core of the earth is pretty much "iron". I don't know much about this particular field of science, but I do know enough to know that scientists expert in the subject know far more than I can list off the top of my head. I have no doubt that there are a multitude of other scientifically established properties of the core, all of which converge on the same answer "iron". If they converged on a different answer, we would know *that* answer instead of iron. If they didn't converge on an answer, we would know that the field was in a big famous state of confusion on the subject. Just off the top of my head *I* know enough to fairly well establish that it has be iron, and what I know on the subject is diddlysquat compared to the experts.

The article I linked was merely the first result showing the earth's core was iron in a solid state, as opposed to iron in a liquid state. There is a vast body of other evidence and other experiments establishing beyond any reasonable doubt other aspects of the earth's interior. And it is not remotely compatible with any large hollow space anywhere below the crust.

In any modern well informed scientific context, "silly" is an entirely appropriate term to describe any sort of hollow earth theory.

-

Oh how I wish that were true. A 2005 poll has acceptance and rejection of evolution in the US are pretty well tied. The only change over twenty years was a decline on both sides, with an increase in the "not sure" response. I think that indicates some margin of success in their "teach the controversy" tactic.

Note that out of 34 countries, the US came in SECOND TO LAST, ahead of only Turkey.

(If anyone happens to have more recent polling data hand I would be eager to see it, but I don't anticipate any large shift in the numbers)

-

Vacuum, gasses, liquids, and solids reveal different properties in how sound waves pass through them (with vacuum revealed by not transmitting sound at all of course). Sound waves can also be focused to create images, like the way dolphins can see with sonar. Where building a suitable lens is impractical you can use multiple sound sources and/or multiple listening points as a virtual lens to compute an image. Here's a good link explaining a 1998 confirmation of a solid inner core below the molten mantle and molten outer core: Earthquake Provides Proof That Earth's Innermost Core Is Solid.

Another link is: Evidence for Internal Earth Structure and Composition. That one gives more explanation on how seismic waves are used to see the inner earth, but mainly I'm linking it for this image which illustrates how seismic stations at different points on earth see seismic waves passing through different parts of the earth. Seismic stations at the bottom of the image see seismic waves which reveal the inner and outer core. Note that it takes something like a half hour or more for waves from an earthquake to arrive at the opposite side of the planet. Different kinds of waves travel at different speeds and arrive several minutes apart, with the difference in timing between different kinds of waves providing rich additional information of the composition of the earth along various paths. Different kinds of waves can be analyzed separately to compute images of different aspects of the inner earth.

-

I realize this is fanciful, and the odds are really high that this didn't happen, but who is to say that six thousand years ago something didn't just pop everything into existence fully formed, *including* all of the evidence?

Wow. It's really impressive seeing someone literally invoking Last_Thursdayism in defense of "merely circumstantial evidence" argument. Usually it's the atheist side that invokes Last Thursdayism to point out how unbelievably stupid it is to dismiss an entire planet of evidence as "merely" circumstantial.

-

*IF* that can indeed be used to tear down their beliefs, then these beliefs are in conflict with reality.

When someone acts based upon misinformation the outcome is at best random. Any benefit derived from acting on false beliefs is pot luck, and it is on average grossly outweighed by the harm that often results from acting on false information.

"Tearing down" falsehoods and misunderstandings is an altruistic social good. It makes it less likely for people to inadvertently cause harm with their well-intentioned acts.

The study and understanding of evolution can potentially do something infinitely better. It may save that child or family member from dying in the first place. Either it may further the advancement of science in general leading to the cure or prevention of the cause of death, or it may keep someone from unwittingly acting in some way that causes or allows the death to happen.

10-year-old Lilly Badger and 7-year-old twins Grace and Sarah Badger are dead. And why are they dead? Because they believed Santa Clause was real. They are dead because some people allowed and encouraged them to believe Santa Clause was real. They are dead because there was not a single adult in their life to stand up and tell them the truth. The children were afraid Santa would be hurt by the burning embers in the fireplace. So the burning embers were hazardously removed from the fireplace, and they were trapped when the house turned into an inferno.

I have a radical proposal. My proposal is that they could have been told the truth, and the family could have still celebrated the holiday, and the children and the parents still could have enjoyed the presents and family time.

Santa-frigging-Claus. Something every adult knows is fiction. When adults believe in a fiction, and act based upon that fiction, the harmful results are infinitely more common and overall cause vastly more harm both large and small. I am not selectively singling out the most extreme results like, as you note yourself, enslavement and torture. I'm not ignoring any positives. I'm saying that in sum total, when people act based upon misinformation the result is at best random. That it is on average harmful. I'm saying the net result is harmful.

it's not going to help them find satisfaction in helping to feed and clothe the starving or serving mankind in other ways.

Nor does knowledge of evolution prevent people from finding satisfaction in helping to feed and clothe the starving or serving mankind in other ways.

And if we didn't waste so many resources building gold-clad temples to Athena and Zeus, perhaps there would be fewer people in desperate need of food and clothing. If we didn't waste some much time doing rain dances to water the crops, perhaps we could allocate even a tiny fraction of that time building irrigation for crops to feed and clothe people.

-

Any who came up with the idiotic idea that beliefs are inherently entitled to any respect?

If your neighbor has a belief that he's being anal probed by gay alien government agents, are you seriously suggesting that belief warrants any respect whatsoever? Does it warrant any more respect if someone believes in walking talking snakes? Does it warrant any more respect when someone believes God wrote, or divinely inspired, a book which (in part) orders parents to murder disrespectful children?

I respect people's freedom to believe stupid stuff. But that does not mean I have to respect the belief itself, nor does it mean I have to respect a person who believes stupid stuff.

-

True, but perhaps the English language could be specific enough provide a to every sentence.

-

Did you even look at the link? It's a screenshot of Fox News' own headline stating "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES", and if you check the dates you'll see that they began promoting their "Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties" a week or more in advance.

Coverage is when you report on an what other other people are doing over there.
When you run media campaign in an effort to get people to show up at your own event in the future, that's called promoting.

MSNBC, CNN, and every other legitimate News Agency provided coverage of the Tea Party events.

If you have a screen shot of a CNN headline advertizing a "CNN Occupy Events", especially if they start advertizing it a week in advance, then that would be promoting. All the legitimate news agencies, and part-time-news-agency FOX, provided coverage of Occupy. Fox took a break from their occasional news coverage to provide advance promotion for their own Tea Party Events.

Fox thought it would be a swell scheme to undermine the current administration.

-

You goofed.
The only "Epic Fail" is that you never bothered to check the link.

This is a perfect illustration of how partisans on both sides can lose touch with reality. People have a bad habit of picking teams, and then mental shortcuts can fall into place short-circuiting reasoned consideration and logic. Mental filters can drop into place that block information from entering the brain at all, without even permitting any rational consideration of whether the information is true or valuable.

You saw MediaMatters on the link, and you instantly applied shortcircuit logic to deem whatever was there automatically biased and false. A mental filter dropped into place that kept whatever was there from making it into your brain, filtering it out without permitting any consideration of what it was and whether it was true information.

You went on an immediate rant against MediaMatters, and you goofed. It wouldn't matter even if everything in your rant were 100% true, because he wasn't citing Mediamatters. He was citing Fox News. And you would have known that if you bothered checking the link for 3 seconds. He was citing Fox News in a TV screen capture. The image is merely hosted on a MediaMatters webserver. The information in the image, the information he was citing, was 100% from Fox News, straight out of Fox News' mouth, straight out of Fox News' own headline.

False. Fox News did not "cover" the Tea Parties, Fox News created and promoted the events week or more in advance. And if you bothered to check the link you'd have seen Fox New's own headline stating that these were Fox News Channel Events.

Quoting Fox News' own headline: "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES".

Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties.

That's what Fox called them, while PROMOTING them. While promoting them a week in advance.

Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties.

His statement was completely correct. Fox News is a partisan political activism organization, and they figured it would be a swell idea to undermine the current administration by orchestrating these "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES". And as he said, it's actually grown some legitimate roots since and has proved more difficult to control than the establishment would like. It's turned into a bit of a Frankenstein monster, largely wrecking damage on the GOP. Yes, as you said the GOP has become rather afraid of the Tea Party.

A small number of Tea Party radicals have gotten elected, and their inability to function as legislators has disrupted the Republican Caucus from the inside, while a similar number of Tea Party radicals have won Republican primaries and in the general election handed those seats to the Democrats. The net effect on Democratic side is roughly zero, while the net effect for the Republicans is decidedly negative.

The "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES" have largely backfired.

-