Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If we are all descended from Noah ...
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 165 (18218)
09-25-2002 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by John
09-23-2002 10:38 PM


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Here is the fallacy of your analogy, which I interpret to be a strawman argument, because you chose an unrelated example that is used to attack the real issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's pretend that you said 'faulty analogy' since that is the fallacy your describe.
WS: Why do that since I meant and supported what I said? Taking another lap around it?
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS:I am proposing simply that the polls are useful to determine what people are thinking, not necessarily what is true or untrue about what is though about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a problem.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: If they think evolution is too weak to exclude creation science, then that is a reality evolutionists will have to deal with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem. This sentence and your previous sentence are not compatible. The first denies that polls have any bearing on what is actual fact. The second sentence sneaks the idea back into the machinery.
You ARE using polls to determine a proper course of action, which is why my analogy is valid and not faulty. It is the same argument you use but with different values in key places. This is allowable. In both cases a public poll is used to determine a course of action. Perhaps I should substitute a disease such as cancer in place of an auto accident, because that takes away the sense of urgency. Otherwise, it is the same argument. I am not surprised that you object. But it is your formulation. You constructed the 'course of action via popular poll'.
WS: You are misapplying the word "determine" by not making it clear which definition is in mind. Chose from this abbreviated one:
determine-
1 : to fix conclusively or authoritatively
2 : to come to a decision : settle, resolve
3 : to fix the form or character of beforehand : ordain; also : regulate
4 : to find out the limits, nature, dimensions, or scope of <~ a position at sea>
5 : to bring about as a result
As for my application, you should have determined I was referring to #4. It would be illogical that a poll could effect in itself any of the other definition possibilities. None of the polls affected my own opinion, but all are a measure as to how well each party communicates their message, and how people interpret what is proposed. All of that indicates whether people are even giving an issue thought, and indicates whether a new trend is underway, which it is in the case of creation v evolution. Something significant is occurring, and I doubt it is people taking up textbooks and studying the topics. They are reacting to perceptions, the side issues that are rooted in the agendas of the competing ideologies. Whichever way the public does swing will determine the practice. The polls serve only to predict which way will be part of current culture. Even though the majority of Americans might not be true Christians attending church and reading/believing the Bible, I do perceive the majority to be willing to defend Christianity and the Bible whether they understand all that or not. They are realizing there is a threat to that and are rising up. Agnostic teachers I know are sympathetic concerning the Bible, not willing to castigate its contents, yet not willing to adhere to its teachings. They at least show respect for those who do revere its message.
The sentence that you disagred with simply means that proponents of evolution should understand they are not convincing people there is validity to the claimed fact of it, and are faced with the prediction a majority question the science and ideology of it. Because evolution theory by itself is presented in a compartmentalized mode irrespective of other ideologies, stand-alone from the tests of religion, it can't be trusted as a stand-alone value to be taught as an absolute.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: It is evident a growing slight majority of Americans are favoring equal treatment, and that those more concerned about the issue are now becoming more involved in changing the situation in public classrooms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are again asking that theories be included for no other reason than public opinion. How can you on one hand make a statement like this and on the other claim that public opinion has nothing to do with what is true? It doesn't make sense.
WS: I'm suggesting that it would have been wise for evolutionists to recognize from the poll results people are not buying the stand-alone presentation of evolution theory without some challenge to its conclusions. Even scientists reject science that is set as above challenge, which was so with Einstein's theories. I didn't propose that the polls reveal the truth or untruth about the topic, nor do they drive public opinion. Other forces do that, while the polls just measure the movement. Think of polls as yardsticks. No yardstick adds or takes away one inch to any stature.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: It does matter what a majority of people believe, which preceeds legislation or becomes part of a culture. Most nations are full of people influenced by religion to the point they sometimes accept malnutrition in their children and shortened lifespans for all. They can't support their lifestyle scientifically, not explaining logically why they pour their milk over a stone elephant while babies are deprived of its nourishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is an argument for your position?
WS: Part of several. What people believe already will largely determine what else they will accept. Some don't trust the government, so can't be convinced the government sent men to the moon.
If enough people believed that way, there would be no more money spent on such endeavors. Rather than shove the truth down their throats the wise thing to do is to find other ways to convince the majority. Compartmentalization of something as significant as evolution theory raised to science level by believers in evolution is not the advisable way to go. If evolution can't stand in the presence of creaton science and emerge unscathed, then the theory is weaker than adherents think it is. That they refuse to allow the two to be compared through constructive thinking is evidence of a cover-up, which Americans are sick of these days. What are you afraid of? Creation science is the only check/balance system around to test the theory of evolution.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: You believe evolution is supportable scientifically to the exclusion of anything creation scientists come up with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Any creation scientist may come up with good data at time and is welcome to present it, but creationism as a science is ridiculous.
WS: OK, I'll have to stop here, needing to go pull some statements from famous evolutionists that might convince you are ignoring sound advice. Your own experts disagree with you, who caution against such biased statements. By making such claims you convince people that don't believe in either theory that your choice is obviously severely faulted. How could the contributions of the creation scientists be actually "rediculous" without destroying their careers? Who would employ scientists considered rediculous? You damage your credibility. I'll try to come back to this post and finish it later, but this point needs special attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by John, posted 09-23-2002 10:38 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by John, posted 09-25-2002 10:27 AM Wordswordsman has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 165 (18248)
09-25-2002 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Wordswordsman
09-25-2002 7:37 AM


Howdy. Before addressing your post... You still haven't got the quotes function down. Your posts are not 'reply quoting' correctly. Only the first few lines show up. I don't can't tell you how to correct it as I can't see the source of you message. Maybe if you give me you password I'll debug for you.
quote:
WS: Why do that since I meant and supported what I said? Taking another lap around it?
But you didn't support it, and now stubbornly insist on you correct interpretation.
I was thinking about this last night as I went to bed. My analogy was an analysis of structure. For any argument, you should be able to switch key values and still have the argument make sense. If it doesn't, there is something wrong with the argument.
quote:
As for my application, you should have determined I was referring to #4. It would be illogical that a poll could effect in itself any of the other definition possibilities.
Actually, any but #5 fit.
Check your own arguments. While you may use #4 initially, as soon as you start applying the finding to school curriculum, you are using numbers 1, 2 and 3.
quote:
WS: I'm suggesting that it would have been wise for evolutionists to recognize from the poll results people are not buying the stand-alone presentation of evolution theory without some challenge to its conclusions.
Would it also be wise to recognize that 40% of the population believes in astrology and so include it too?
You are still arguing that public opinion, determined by polls, should dictate what is science.
quote:
I didn't propose that the polls reveal the truth or untruth about the topic, nor do they drive public opinion. Other forces do that, while the polls just measure the movement. Think of polls as yardsticks. No yardstick adds or takes away one inch to any stature.
But you do insist that theories be included on the basis of poll results. This is effectively the same thing. The yardstick analogy is valid only if you stop once the measurement has been made.
quote:
WS: Part of several. What people believe already will largely determine what else they will accept.
And we should compound the error?
quote:
Rather than shove the truth down their throats the wise thing to do is to find other ways to convince the majority.
This would make sense if you were arguing to include a course debunking creationism.
quote:
WS: OK, I'll have to stop here, needing to go pull some statements from famous evolutionists that might convince you are ignoring sound advice.
Why not just prove the claim wrong? Where is the scientific theory of creation?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-25-2002 7:37 AM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-26-2002 9:08 PM John has replied

Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 165 (18374)
09-26-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by John
09-25-2002 10:27 AM


Howdy. Before addressing your post... You still haven't got the quotes function down. Your posts are not 'reply quoting' correctly. Only the first few lines show up. I don't can't tell you how to correct it as I can't see the source of you message. Maybe if you give me you password I'll debug for you.
WS: I took the admin's suggestion and reverted to copy/paste using Reply. I haven't taken time looking into UBB, again chosingto reply tonight or go look it over. The (suggested) pattern for now is:
former quote
your response
my (WS response
former quote
etc
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Why do that since I meant and supported what I said? Taking another lap around it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you didn't support it, and now stubbornly insist on you correct interpretation.
I was thinking about this last night as I went to bed. My analogy was an analysis of structure. For any argument, you should be able to switch key values and still have the argument make sense. If it doesn't, there is something wrong with the argument.
WS: No way. Your "key values" are personal choices subject to relativism. Your original "key value" was: 'group decision concerning injured child needing medical attention' made equal to group decision concerning subjects included in curriculum. No relationship exists, except 'group decision'. You next substituted 'group decision concerning cancer victim' equal to the fixed value 'group decision concerning subjects included in curriculum'. Those values don't equate unless you are equating the decision of including creation science in curriculum equal to critical, life-threatening decisions. Who is in danger of dying if the group decides the wrong way concerning curriculum? Evolutionist scientists out of work? I would suggest all of them could be put to more meaningful science endeavors.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: As for my application, you should have determined I was referring to #4. It would be illogical that a poll could effect in itself any of the other definition possibilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, any but #5 fit.
Check your own arguments. While you may use #4 initially, as soon as you start applying the finding to school curriculum, you are using numbers 1, 2 and 3.
WS: I have no power to command the curriculum set assemblage, even advised of the trends of public opinion through polls. The polls don't increase my power. Educators and associated elected officials and their appointees, who have the power, might change direction when they learn how the voters increasingly disagree with their current emphasis. Their values appear not to be shared by the majority of people with power to unseat them. I can employ the poll information to tell others whether they are properly represented by politicians or not, influencing their votes. Since I can't vote for them, they still remain the force of change, not my using the polls to effect change, since I have only one vote.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: I'm suggesting that it would have been wise for evolutionists to recognize from the poll results people are not buying the stand-alone presentation of evolution theory without some challenge to its conclusions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it also be wise to recognize that 40% of the population believes in astrology and so include it too?
You are still arguing that public opinion, determined by polls, should dictate what is science.
WS: Why consider including that when there is little or no public or institutional demand to do so? Educators have not been promoting inclusion of astrology. It's a non issue. The reality at hand, based on truth or not, is the growing public sentiment that creation science is worthy of inclusion. Polls are after the fact, reporting what the public has already ordained should be science. Those trusted to carry out the will of the people (we are a democratic republic) should do so. They must face up to the challenge of allowing students to be presented creation science, allowing them along with their parents, to decide the validity of an evolution-alone scenario. If they fail to allow it, the public will work around that, possibly making an end of evolution theory in any textbook since denial of alternatives only convinces people of a cover-up, and indicates paranoia among proponents of the theory. That is perceived as a weakness of the theory, demanding an accounting of what is taught by comparing it to what the majority possibly believes as true. It is in that process that the true science should overcome the untrue, satisfying many people.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: I didn't propose that the polls reveal the truth or untruth about the topic, nor do they drive public opinion. Other forces do that, while the polls just measure the movement. Think of polls as yardsticks. No yardstick adds or takes away one inch to any stature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you do insist that theories be included on the basis of poll results. This is effectively the same thing. The yardstick analogy is valid only if you stop once the measurement has been made.
WS: The public insists on it. I am just reporting what the majority thinks about it. Whatever the will of the people is will be done unless we cease to be a democratic republic. A slight majority says include, so it should be included until the majority decides that was either the final decision or it was the wrong approach. At that time the decision could be made to alter the plan, to make inclusion law, exclude evolution altogther, permanently exclude creation science, or require both or neither to be taught. For now he decree is "include".
However, should the powers decide there is no opinion "out there" at some point, or if the will of the people is clearly known, then whatever is currently acceptable is to be taught.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Part of several. What people believe already will largely determine what else they will accept.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And we should compound the error?
WS: Atempting to force the population to accept the one belief the academic elite says is truth is similar to religious gnosticism. Americans will decide for themselves and select representatives accordingly.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than shove the truth down their throats the wise thing to do is to find other ways to convince the majority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This would make sense if you were arguing to include a course debunking creationism.
WS: Acceptable if you add to that a course debunking evolution.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: OK, I'll have to stop here, needing to go pull some statements from famous evolutionists that might convince you are ignoring sound advice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not just prove the claim wrong? Where is the scientific theory of creation?
WS: If it were possible to prove creation wrong scientifically, it would already have been. You should by now have come across the manifold theory of creation science which can't be contained in any one book. If you don't have a clue, I'll point you to some book titles and websites that will educate ou about that. For now, consider what the experts among evolutionists had to say:
Niles Eldridge cautioned evolutionists concerning the whipping they took in that great decade of debates with creationists. "Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific topics."
Professor Corner: "The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact
that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of
natural affinity."
"Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution -from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found
for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell
of the theory of evolution."
"Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."
"Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced --- the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution."
"If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation."
"The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?"
Prof. E.J.H.Corner- Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University, UK
"We take the side of science in SPITE OF the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in SPITE OF its failures to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in SPITE OF the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
because we have a prior committment, a committment to materialism."
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence
to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin'a review of Review of Carl Sagan's 'The Demon-Haunted World'.
"Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the
fossil record has been its obvious imperfection. For the
evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it
precludes any real possibility for mapping out the path of
organic evolution owing to an infinity of 'missing links'."
Arthur Boucot, Ph.D.geology; Professor of Geology, Oregon St. U. "Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls", Amsterdam, 1975,
p.196.
Those are circulating in several forums, gaining in popularity, quite predictably. I think they are all in a creation science Revised Quote Book, author unknown to me today. You can paste the quotes into a search engine and find the individual quote sources. They are all well known. I need to relocate that website that has them ready for copy/paste. You can probably find related sites that make things tough for creationists, but my point is you err in insinuating creationists have no science, or that evolution theory is fully science with conclusive fact based on a perfect data set. The data for evolution is largely brought together into the assumptions that make the theory through many interpolations between missing transitions in the fossil record. From a tooth or tail bone entire creatures and their apparent shapes, phisiology and lifestyles are surmised. Fossil remains resembling apes are categorically declared hominids in a rush to deny the creatures could have been actual apes. The rush slams on without the truth ever catching up to it all, too often requiring scientists to retract their opinions here and there or just hope nobody noticed their errors. Eventually honest scientists make the corrections, but not until after much damage to truth occurs.
Listen to the evolution experts. They have offered much good advice about the real challenge of creationsits. If you ignore them, you are destined to repeat their costly mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by John, posted 09-25-2002 10:27 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by John, posted 09-26-2002 10:39 PM Wordswordsman has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 165 (18378)
09-26-2002 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Wordswordsman
09-26-2002 9:08 PM


quote:
WS: No way. Your "key values" are personal choices subject to relativism.
Then choose something else. The point is that if your argument is valid for your choice of values it is valid for any other.
quote:
No relationship exists, except 'group decision'.
Problem + poll result = decision
C or E + poll result = decision
injury + poll result = decision
The values don't matter.
quote:
WS: I have no power to command the curriculum set assemblage, even advised of the trends of public opinion through polls.
What does that matter? You have made the argument that polls ought to decide the issue of including creationism in class.
quote:
The reality at hand, based on truth or not, is the growing public sentiment that creation science is worthy of inclusion. Polls are after the fact, reporting what the public has already ordained should be science.
Ya know. If that doesn't say it all then what does?
quote:
Those trusted to carry out the will of the people (we are a democratic republic) should do so.
quote:
If they fail to allow it, the public will work around that, possibly making an end of evolution theory in any textbook since denial of alternatives only convinces people of a cover-up, and indicates paranoia among proponents of the theory.
Desperate?
quote:
WS: The public insists on it. I am just reporting what the majority thinks about it.
Really? All you are doing is reporting?
quote:
For now he decree is "include".
However, should the powers decide there is no opinion "out there" at some point, or if the will of the people is clearly known, then whatever is currently acceptable is to be taught.

This country was never set up to be what you presume.
quote:
Americans will decide for themselves and select representatives accordingly.
ummmm.... ok.
quote:
WS: If it were possible to prove creation wrong scientifically, it would already have been.
Pretty much every testable aspect of creationism has been shown to be wrong. What is left is not testable so how does one prove it one way or the other?
quote:
You should by now have come across the manifold theory of creation science which can't be contained in any one book.
I have seen many many theories of creation, many of which are mutually incompatible. Which do you mean? And, by the way, which theory does 'the public' ordain to be true?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-26-2002 9:08 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-27-2002 1:49 AM John has replied

Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 165 (18397)
09-27-2002 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by John
09-26-2002 10:39 PM


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: No way. Your "key values" are personal choices subject to relativism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then choose something else. The point is that if your argument is valid for your choice of values it is valid for any other.
WS: It is your problem that you can't understand my argument which doesn't need to be tested with unrelated "key values". You are not making any sense about that.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: No relationship exists, except 'group decision'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem + poll result = decision
C or E + poll result = decision
injury + poll result = decision
The values don't matter.
WS: Wrong again on all three counts except that "a" decision is common to all, but they are very different kinds of decisions, by groups, by individuals, by pre-existing concensus, virtually a cultural reaction. A medical emergency doesn't require a poll to decide whether to provide service to the injured. Most people already know what is expected of them. The will of any group above age 6 is already known about that, not requiring a poll.
The cancer example is very personal, mostly a decision between doctor and patient/family. Public opinion for that makes no sense for an individual case. Those decisions are made very personally concerning actions to be taken for that. As for the curriculum issue, there are already two decisions pre-existing in the population. One group says evolution only, the other says creation too or none at all. Those decisions are not known until a poll is taken, the results of which could provide a deciding opinion, that of the majority, which is known only by the sums of agreement. That decision is meaningless until a group acts upon the knowledge. The numbers themselves have no power to change anything, but indicate which group is most likely to effect change if they act. There is probably no simple "key value" you can substitute for such a decision process. That one is unique.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: I have no power to command the curriculum set assemblage, even advised of the trends of public opinion through polls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What does that matter? You have made the argument that polls ought to decide the issue of including creationism in class.
WS: One last time....the polls reveal what is already decided. The die is cast and the numbers detect the "shape" of it. Remember the Florida vote mess? TV stations carried a false report that Gore had a landslide victory, so thousands of Repulicans left the polling places in apparent defeat. When the truth came out the reported poll information was wrong, the voting hours were extended to allow the voters to return. Those people had decided to vote for Bush, but when told he was losing beyond help of their votes, gave up, but had not changed their minds about Bush. Exit polls showed they went back and voted for Bush in time to be counted. In that case, the polls didn't ordain anything, only revealing the probable winner, encouraging voters to go add their vote to make sure he won.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reality at hand, based on truth or not, is the growing public sentiment that creation science is worthy of inclusion. Polls are after the fact, reporting what the public has already ordained should be science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya know. If that doesn't say it all then what does?
WS: I thought so too.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Those trusted to carry out the will of the people (we are a democratic republic) should do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: If they fail to allow it, the public will work around that, possibly making an end of evolution theory in any textbook since denial of alternatives only convinces people of a cover-up, and indicates paranoia among proponents of the theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Desperate?
WS: I'd say the evolutionists often express desperation, fearing more verification of a living God who will judge them who are of unbelief.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: The public insists on it. I am just reporting what the majority thinks about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? All you are doing is reporting?
WS: That is all I did in the beginning, pointing out the fact the public has obviously decided what they believe and are making adjustments already commensurate with their beliefs.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: For now he decree is "include".
However, should the powers decide there is no opinion "out there" at some point, or if the will of the people is clearly known, then whatever is currently acceptable is to be taught.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This country was never set up to be what you presume.
WS: I don't know about Germany, even more uncertain considering the election there. But the USA is most definitely working the way I describe, as a fully functional democratic republic. The people do govern themselves through elected representatives. Maybe you are one of those Electoral College critics. It won't be going away, requiring a very large majority vote. It is demonstrated more strongly on the state and local level, though. There are great examples very often that the principle still works. I won my national votes, and most of the local and state votes. Aside from that, I've seen many of the promises carried out which would not have been done had the opponents been elected. More importantly our school board is very nearly ideal, making much needed changes we've demanded for years. One of those is a significant reduction of paperwork that keeps teachers from doing what teachers were trained to do, one of the reasons I quit. I loved teaching, but not all the junk thrown in later, like the reports for convincing people you are doing your job. Course test scores and aptitude tests ought to answer that. Another thing our elected representatives did was condition of getting our votes was to reduce the emphasis on sports, making academic activities equal. All the way up the line we have a good team of representatives doing the things we asked for, especially the Bush team concerning education. The former administration had 8 years to fix it, leaving it in an almost impossible mess.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: If it were possible to prove creation wrong scientifically, it would already have been.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty much every testable aspect of creationism has been shown to be wrong. What is left is not testable so how does one prove it one way or the other?
WS: If that were true there would be no creation scientists left. They would all have joined the evolution teams. But their ranks are growing, not shrinking. If you were correct, why did the evolutionists lose the debates over the past decade, avoiding those embarassing moments by avoiding new debates? The responses to that have been centered around simple denial of facts and accusations of out-showmanship, yet the transcripts generated by creationists carried heavy technical material while evolutionists mostly tried to discredit the religion of the creationist debaters, avoiding the technical arguments. Why is that? The debate transcripts were once online, but hard to find now. I wonder why.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: You should by now have come across the manifold theory of creation science which can't be contained in any one book.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen many many theories of creation, many of which are mutually incompatible. Which do you mean? And, by the way, which theory does 'the public' ordain to be true?
WS: I am aware of what you refer to. One of those theories is the "canopy theory" which I really disagree with. There are others not well thought out. However, the public hasn't appeared to prefer any one set of creation theories making up a whole. They want it generally considered equal time with evolution. Evolution theory is also composed of many subset theories, some of which evolutionists disagree over, as I mentioned earlier, such as punctuated equilibrium, taken by some as an embarassment and shame on the cause.
I'd say the learning spiral would accommodate students having opportunity to cover all of the theories, regarding all the dirty laundry as well as the good stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by John, posted 09-26-2002 10:39 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by John, posted 09-27-2002 11:13 AM Wordswordsman has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 165 (18420)
09-27-2002 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Wordswordsman
09-27-2002 1:49 AM


quote:
WS: It is your problem that you can't understand my argument which doesn't need to be tested with unrelated "key values".
Yes it does. The SAME argument justifies things which you do not intend. Why not just reformulate?
quote:
WS: Wrong again on all three counts except that "a" decision is common to all, but they are very different kinds of decisions, by groups, by individuals, by pre-existing concensus, virtually a cultural reaction.
Now you are getting it, and properly defending your intent.
Look, my point with the analogy is that the argument is flawed, not necessarily that the idea is flawed (though I believe that as well).
Logically, one can add any variable one wishes to an argument via a rule of inference known as addition. Hence, it is necessary that your argument works with other variables or you must deal with the consequences. The simple smart thing is to rethink the argument and reformulate it when undesired applications are pointed out to you.
quote:
WS: One last time....the polls reveal what is already decided.
And.... ???? Maybe you can refresh my memory as to the relevance of this?
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reality at hand, based on truth or not, is the growing public sentiment that creation science is worthy of inclusion. Polls are after the fact, reporting what the public has already ordained should be science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya know. If that doesn't say it all then what does?
WS: I thought so too.

So it is your opinion that schools should teach whatever the polls say people believe irrelevant of the truth of theory?
This is incomprehensible to me.
quote:
WS: I don't know about Germany
Germany?
quote:
But the USA is most definitely working the way I describe, as a fully functional democratic republic.
Sorry, wrong again. The slow, brooding, internally feuding US government was set up to prevent just this sort of thing. What you describe is more of a pure democracy-- governed purely by popular vote. You've said yourself that in the US this is not the case. We vote for representatives. Ever wonder why the country's government is so segmented? It is common knowledge that the authors of the nation put great effort into preventing any aspect of the government from gaining too much power. What is not so commonly known is that the founders were equally fearful of direct democracies-- mob rule. The government was to check the whims of the populace even as the populace checked the government. Brilliant system actually.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/graymada/Farrell/EC/sf_ec1.html
quote:
WS: If that were true there would be no creation scientists left.
You assume 100% honesty in these scientists and underestimate the power of faith. As for the latter, I cannot count the times that people have openly admitted to me that I won this-r-that debate, yet still refuse to change their mind. I am sure you've had similar experiences.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-27-2002 1:49 AM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-29-2002 7:48 AM John has replied

Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 165 (18526)
09-29-2002 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by John
09-27-2002 11:13 AM


Skipping over circular reasoning...
"So it is your opinion that schools should teach whatever the polls say people believe irrelevant of the truth of theory?
This is incomprehensible to me."
WS: I said "One last time", but you missed the signal that you are not getting a very simple point. Look at it this way, then. Say I had a bakery that produced one type of bread that many people purchased for decades. Gradually the business falls off, so I decide to sample all my customers by mail, asking them questions about my service. 51% say they formerly would not consider another bakery in the past, but now visit others because the others offer more variety, even though they are accustomed to my bread. They are willing to pay a little more for the same bread if there is variety, understanding it requires more machinery and personnel to produce variety. I discover there is definitely a trend among customers to eventually abandon my bakery to the point I will go out of business if there is no change. I have a decision to make. Continue offering the same bread that was seemingly so successful for so long, or add variety. The intelligent thing to do is what the customers want, or sell the bakery while it still has value.
I already knew there was a problem. I didn't need the poll to tell me that. What the poll told me that I couldn't otherwise figure out was the extent of the customer problem, assisting me in prediction how far the problem would extend, knowing the quality of the bread was not an issue. The poll didn't change the minds of the customers, nor would it affect them if they knew the results of it. They know what they want- more variety. A competitor would enjoy the results, using them to his advantage, probably adding variety regularly to stay ahead of my business.
Education officials and educators are faced with a similar decision. They have believed all along the exclusion of creation science from science curriculum was proper because they BELIEVE it isn't science. They believed their product, evolution, was proper. But now they see the polls and the trend that people are not satisfied with that. People obviously don't trust the opinions of educators to decide what is "truth of theory". They prefer to make that decision themselves. I doubt they are aware of the contents of these debates and discussions, the facts we discuss, the substance of the differences between theories. Few are. It doesn't enter in to the issue. Few educators themselves are really aware of the facts, "knowing" on the basis of lesson plans that don't allow objective thinking. It is a matter of memorization, not of process, so it doesn't stick. I don't have a poll revealing how bad the problem is among teachers, but I suspect it is significant. The teachers themselves are not convinced or interested enough to learn it. They just "teach" it. They don't often have time to really teach anything, needing time for the mountains of reports to generate. Most teachers just 'throw' it at the students when it comes up, leaving them wrestling it with what they might have learned at home and church. The students are faced with a false dualism at the hands of their science teachers who are mostly unwilling, unable, and 'prohibited' to consider "the alternative" explanation of origins of species and other related processes. Only the theory of evolution is offered whether it takes or not. One result of that long-standing method of teaching is a general decline of interest in science, so now there is a groundswell among educators who araware of the benefits of single-sex schools, thinking that will bolster the numbers. It would significantly benefit young boys in elementary school, girls in high school, but would only be a cover-up of the science problem, not satisfying parents. The polls confirm the dissatisfaction of the public, revealing the need to reconsider. The fact there are creation scientists and textbooks promoting creation science is enough to encourage Bible believing people there is merit in presenting the alternative theories. The poll doesn't settle the issue, nor does the poll reveal which theory is truth. It predicts the future of public education. If the public schools don't offer what they want, they will go elsewhere. They will leave the poor and disadvantaed in inner cities clustered around the public schools, moving to private schools, more progressive public schools, or home schooling. Vouchers will effect change for those able to get their children to a distant preferred school. I can say that with confidence because it's already happening.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: But the USA is most definitely working the way I describe, as a fully functional democratic republic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, wrong again. The slow, brooding, internally feuding US government was set up to prevent just this sort of thing. What you describe is more of a pure democracy-- governed purely by popular vote. You've said yourself that in the US this is not the case. We vote for representatives. Ever wonder why the country's government is so segmented? It is common knowledge that the authors of the nation put great effort into preventing any aspect of the government from gaining too much power. What is not so commonly known is that the founders were equally fearful of direct democracies-- mob rule. The government was to check the whims of the populace even as the populace checked the government. Brilliant system actually.
WS: Too bad you don't understand the system. It's one of checks and balances, not checking government against population, but between arms of government. The judicial arm is the least volatile for change, but the Executive and Legislative are highly volatile, subject to relatively rapid change. For 8 years it appeared that people loved Clinton, around here "the man of men". But that suddenly changed. Next comes the needed change in the legislative branch, putting republicans back in charge. The government has no power to deal with such "whims". The people, whimsical or not, will determine the government course.
Your characterization of my argument being a pure democracy vote is off center. The poll indicates the people will support representatives that promise to give them what they want. So far no poll has directly changed anything in education, leaving people frustrated. Learn about the "democratic repuplic" which is the USA.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: If that were true there would be no creation scientists left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You assume 100% honesty in these scientists and underestimate the power of faith. As for the latter, I cannot count the times that people have openly admitted to me that I won this-r-that debate, yet still refuse to change their mind. I am sure you've had similar experiences.
WS: I would trust the honesty of the creation scientists long past that of people who subscribe to something favored by anarchists, satanists and atheists who are on record as determined to destroy Christianity regardless the dishonesty required. Those groups promote evolution as part of the agenda to change the world. It fits their beliefs like a fine glove on the hand.
As for faith, our faith is in the Lord our God and in His Holy Word, not in science. There are many who have found that faith compatible with creationist explanations of science. The faith in God is a constant, while we can be flexible concerning science, which is a dynamic exercise of the mind. Christians are less prone to hang onto secular untruth or any other ideology once the fallacies are known. I've alrady discarded several popular creationist explanations. By "less prone" I mean that many evolutionists have no other alternative to believe, so are not likely to change at all regardless the facts. They must hang onto something.
You might win a debate over some highly technical aspect of science, but not be able to convince over all the associated arguments that separate us. 'Winning' a particular debate segment only demonstrates you have greater command over one set of points. Science itself is self-correcting and subject to drastic changes, not being as absolute as faith of a religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by John, posted 09-27-2002 11:13 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by John, posted 09-29-2002 10:23 AM Wordswordsman has replied
 Message 163 by Mammuthus, posted 10-01-2002 12:26 PM Wordswordsman has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 165 (18531)
09-29-2002 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Wordswordsman
09-29-2002 7:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
Skipping over circular reasoning...
Get a book on logic. I recommend a logician named Copi.
As for you bread store story: Once again you explain how schools ought to teach what the polls say the people want. Verifiable science doesn't enter into it. People's personal tastes are valid concerns when you are baking bread, not when you are trying to determine and teach what happens to actually be the truth.
quote:
It's one of checks and balances, not checking government against population, but between arms of government.
That the checks and balances work between arms of the government is not debated. It is also not the whole story.
quote:
During the Federal Convention, Hamilton expressed the concern that if we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy
Try reading: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.sms.org/mdl-indx/polybius/polybius.htm
Or:
quote:
May 31, 1787, while addressing members of the Constitutional Convention Edmund Randolph said, "We meet here today to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy...."
1787, Elbridge Gerry, said: "The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want (that is, do not lack) virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots."
June 21, 1788, Alexander Hamilton: "It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
Alexander Hamilton: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
Samuel Adams: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide."
James Madison: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
John Marshall (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835): "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
Still think there was no thought toward checking the whims of the populace?
quote:
The people, whimsical or not, will determine the government course.
Yes, but very very slowly, hence negating the whimsical.
quote:
Learn about the "democratic repuplic" which is the USA.
Why don't you take a shot at it too?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 09-29-2002]
[This message has been edited by John, 09-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-29-2002 7:48 AM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-30-2002 12:30 PM John has replied

Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 165 (18602)
09-30-2002 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by John
09-29-2002 10:23 AM


"As for you bread store story: Once again you explain how schools ought to teach what the polls say the people want. Verifiable science doesn't enter into it. People's personal tastes are valid concerns when you are baking bread, not when you are trying to determine and teach what happens to actually be the truth."
WS: Evolutionist scientists have been for quite some time victim of a terrible conflict concerning absolute certainty, unable to decide what is real, since the emergence of quantum mechanics. Many "creationist"(*) scientists are laboring under no such loss of deterministic reality.
We take seriously the Scripture that sets the basis for determining what is real, being what is of an infinite lifetime. 2 Cor. 4:18
"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."
* Let's review the term. Many scientists are Christians, many believe the Bible accounts as literal, though are not all involved in the creation/evolution issue. If they are revealed as Bible believers, they are considered "Creationist" anyway. Other Christian scientists are active in the issue, rightly labelled "Creation scientists", who are also contributing to their respective science fields apart from the issue at hand. There are also non-Christian scientists who are ecidedly anti evolution, taking positions closer to those of Creation scientists.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Federal Convention, Hamilton expressed the concern that if we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try reading: http://www.sms.org/mdl-indx/polybius/polybius.htm
WS: Hence the move to a democratic republic. Supposedly the popular vote would have placed Gore in office by mob rule, taking into account many illigitimate votes in Florida. But the mechanics of the republic prevented that, offsetting fraud in any one large group of voters. If the US got what many cried out for, supremacy of popular vote, we would have a Democracy ("mob-rule"). But that didn't happen, did it? The "Electoral College" came into play, which is based on the popular vote, but handled through delegates of the parties- representation, not democratic rule.
I wasn't aware of the Polybius contribution. Interesting. So what are we arguing? The USA is not a Democracy, never was, for then the will of the current majority is law, not the Constitution which grants the limited government the law by which it rules under power granted by "We the People". The truer government is vested in the several states under our system, while that which is specified as duties of the federal government is of the national government. Democracy has a part in shaping the mix of representatives that carry out and make the laws. The representatives themselves determine the shape of rule, within bounds of the US Constitution, secondarily the state constitutions.
"Alexander Hamilton: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
WS: I agree. The GOVERNMENT is a republic, but not the PEOPLE, the society of the United States of America. We are "We the People" who grant power to the republic government. OUR part is democratic vote, determining who the representatives will be in in both state and federal houses, using EC to determine the Presidency by representation of the parties. The democratic principle is limited.
"Still think there was no thought toward checking the whims of the populace?"
WS: The "whims" of the people follow in the change of the guard, every politicians' nightmare. The republic government shields itself from temporary whims of the people, but if those "whims" turn out to be the WILL of the people, those whims determine how the republic will rule within bounds of the Constitution.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: The people, whimsical or not, will determine the government course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but very very slowly, hence negating the whimsical.
WS: Sure, but certain to sort whimsical from lasting will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by John, posted 09-29-2002 10:23 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by John, posted 09-30-2002 3:52 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 160 of 165 (18609)
09-30-2002 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
05-27-2002 7:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
If we are all descended from Noah, and Noah had not
only faith in the One God, but proof of his existence ...
Why are there religions other than judaism and christianity ?

Just quoting the opening message, as an attempt to guide things back on topic.
The preceding discussion is good and fine, but might it better be done in one of the "Education and Creation/Evolution" forum topics, or perhaps in one of the "Is It Science?" forum topics?
Some guidance input from topic starter Peter, would be a good thing.
Peter, are you with us, at this topic?
Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 05-27-2002 7:31 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-01-2002 3:33 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 165 (18623)
09-30-2002 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Wordswordsman
09-30-2002 12:30 PM


Wordswordsman,
I am going to copy and paste this message into a new thread. I too would like to get back to the named topic.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-30-2002 12:30 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 162 of 165 (18689)
10-01-2002 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Adminnemooseus
09-30-2002 12:57 PM


I note that Peter is currently posting, so I've give this a bump, and see if he wishes to guide things back on topic.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-30-2002 12:57 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 163 of 165 (18726)
10-01-2002 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Wordswordsman
09-29-2002 7:48 AM


WS: I would trust the honesty of the creation scientists long past that of people who subscribe to something favored by anarchists, satanists and atheists who are on record as determined to destroy Christianity regardless the dishonesty required. Those groups promote evolution as part of the agenda to change the world. It fits their beliefs like a fine glove on the hand.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This lovely little tirade of yours reveals strikingly your complete and total ignorance of science. Most evolutionary biologists are christian so unless you consider all your fellow christians to be satanist anarchist liars then you are just patently ignorant. Actually, do you even personally know a single scientist in any biological field? ALL creation scientist that have published anything use misrepresentations to outright lies to further their religious agendas so the lack of integrity is on their side not mine.
---------------------------------
As for faith, our faith is in the Lord our God and in His Holy Word, not in science.
***************************
You could relplace faith is in our Holy Hand Granade of Antioch and it would be just as irrelevant
-----------------------------------------
There are many who have found that faith compatible with creationist explanations of science.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The ICR EXPLICITLY states that any evidence in opposition to a literal interpretation of the bible will be unacceptable so creationist explanations of science have no merit whatsoever since they a priori state they will ignore evidence contrary to their fixed position.
--------------------------
The faith in God is a constant, while we can be flexible concerning science, which is a dynamic exercise of the mind.
**************************************
each one of the christian sects interpret christianity any way they please to justify anything consistency is about the last thing one sees from different groups of believers.
--------------------------------------
Christians are less prone to hang onto secular untruth or any other ideology once the fallacies are known. I've alrady discarded several popular creationist explanations. By "less prone" I mean that many evolutionists have no other alternative to believe, so are not likely to change at all regardless the facts. They must hang onto something.
---------------------------------------------
Considering most evolutionists are also christians this last paragraph is wishful thinking on your part.
-----------------------------------------
You might win a debate over some highly technical aspect of science, but not be able to convince over all the associated arguments that separate us. 'Winning' a particular debate segment only demonstrates you have greater command over one set of points. Science itself is self-correcting and subject to drastic changes, not being as absolute as faith of a religion.
************************************+
Exactly, when science is wrong or a theory is incomplete it seeks out the truth. A fundamentalist clings to fallacies regardless of the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-29-2002 7:48 AM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-01-2002 9:15 PM Mammuthus has not replied

Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 165 (18770)
10-01-2002 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Mammuthus
10-01-2002 12:26 PM


Is post 163 on topic? If so I'll answer it. If not, someone please clue me in on where the topic left off. I really don't have time to read back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Mammuthus, posted 10-01-2002 12:26 PM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-02-2002 12:49 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 165 of 165 (18790)
10-02-2002 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Wordswordsman
10-01-2002 9:15 PM


A fairly quick search reveals that topic starter Peter lasts posted in message 39, on 9/9/02. Shortly thereafter, things seemed to largely part company with anything to do with Noah. A few random samplings from later posts seem also off on other things.
I bumped the topic last night, when I noticed that Peter was posting on other topics. Got no reaction from him - seemingly he's lost all interest in this topic.
I'm going to declare it terminally off topic, and close the thread.
Comments anyone? I'm available at mnmoose@lakenet.com
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-01-2002 9:15 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024