Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 226 of 253 (274799)
01-01-2006 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by randman
01-01-2006 1:21 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
Ah, I found the transcript of the debate.
Ruse never says that "Evolution is just as certain as 2 + 2 = 4".
Not only does he not say it, he gets interrupted as he is saying "2 + 2 = 4" and never gets to finish his point before Lou Dobbs moves the discussion elsewhere.
It seemed like Ruse was begining to make a point that Morris was using the term "faith" in a misleading way, but that's only a guess from the context.
He never says anything about "certainty" in the way you say he did.
That's what you get when you trust the Creationist websites, randman.
Misquotes and lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 1:21 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 10:22 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 227 of 253 (274800)
01-01-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by randman
01-01-2006 1:31 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
quote:
Imo, evos brought it upon themselves with all of the overstatements and hoaxes passed off as facts over the decades. Because of these things, I don't think evolution as a science deserves the respect or trust of the American people.
So, why not cite a couple of Evolutionary Biology of Population Genetics scholarly jounal aricles and explain to us how they are not scientific, or are very inaccurate, or wrong, or full of lies and hoaxes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 1:31 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 10:24 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 228 of 253 (274801)
01-01-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by randman
01-01-2006 8:34 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
deleted
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-01-2006 08:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 8:34 PM randman has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 229 of 253 (274803)
01-01-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by randman
01-01-2006 8:34 PM


What Ruse Said
The linked article specifically said "leading evolutionary spokesman, Dr. Michael Ruse", so it's interesting that you assumed it wasn't. It also wasn't a newspaper article, it was the ICR website.
And Ruse wasn't "misquoted". He wasn't quoted at all.
Yet you jumped to the conclusions, and used it as evidence about the ignorance of evolutionists about the nature of science.
Please try to be more careful. You went beyond even the ICRs poor presentation to your own interpretation.
And I have no idea what you're talking about re: the views of Ruse, who I would bet has never, ever used the term "hard science", for example.
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 01-01-2006 09:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 8:34 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 230 of 253 (274804)
01-01-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by randman
01-01-2006 7:03 PM


Re: Minority view
quote:
Teaching the controversy is not teaching creationism but teaching what critics say about evolution
Oh, you mean people like Evolutionary Biologists?
Because scientists within a field are the most knowlegeable, best qualified, and most vocal and effective critics of any theory releveant to their expertise.
Science is ruthless, randman. Very competitive. Careers are made by overturning dominant paradigms (just ask Gould). Someone who cannot handle having his or her ideas constantly challenged, picked apart, criticized, tested, and frequently rejected will not be a good scientist.
Your conspiracy theories and conjecture that the hundreds of thousands of scientists over the last 100 years or so have all been incompetent morons is simply raving silliness.
Crashfrog's wife couln't be doing the work she is doing if all Biologists have been fundamentally wrong about everything for the last 150 years.
No Biologist could, because all science progresses by building upon past research.
Do you believe that Population Genetics is completely invalid as a field of study?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 7:03 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 10:27 PM nator has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 231 of 253 (274805)
01-01-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by randman
01-01-2006 1:31 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
The fact you think merely we can and do remove something as evidence of an organ being vestigal...
No, that wasn't what I said, not even close. I won't contribute further to drawing this thread off-topic. If you're interested in understanding what I was saying then I suggest you read the first two paragraphs of my message Message 202 again. Or you could open a new thread if you're interested in discussing evolutionary perspectives on vestigiality.
I think a big problem percy is you guys think your theories are factual when a lot of other people see the propoganda nature of evolutionism.
The reason evolution is considered science and is taught in school is because it is knowledge gained in the same way as all the other fields of science: the scientific method under peer review. Creationism is not taught in school because its claimed knowledge has not passed through any scientific process, and furthermore it is fairly obvious to most that it is thinly vieled Biblical literalism.
I don't think evos would be in such trouble with the public if they stuck to science and facts, but they have advanced, imo, pseudo-science, and regardless of what you feel, the American people have a right to educate their kids as they see fit.
And what the American people have apparently seen fit to do is put standards in place across all the disciplines in the curriculum, from physical eduction to history to science to English to math. And Creationists, rather than doing the work necessary to qualify under these standards, instead attempt to alter the standards while also putting in place a bizarro imitation of the scientific process in the mistaken belief that they can fool people into thinking that Creationists are doing real science.
In many if not most cases the legal process has to deal with the claims of defendents justifying their actions. False claims of a certain category are called "shams", and "sham" is the term that the Dover decision assigned to this Creationist approach.
The government and schools are for and by the people, not the other way around. That's something evos would do well to remember.
Yes, Randman, they're for the people, as in *all* the people. The same standards and laws that prevent conservative Christians from teaching their religion in public schools also prevents Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems from bringing their beliefs into public schools, too. You should be happy about that.
Imo, evos brought it upon themselves with all of the overstatements and hoaxes passed off as facts over the decades. Because of these things, I don't think evolution as a science deserves the respect or trust of the American people.
We already know you think this. It's the rare post where you fail to claim fraud and misrepresentation by evolutionists. It's old news. Real old. I suggest you just stay focused on the topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 1:31 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 10:30 PM Percy has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 232 of 253 (274806)
01-01-2006 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by randman
01-01-2006 1:31 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
quote:
The government and schools are for and by the people, not the other way around. That's something evos would do well to remember.
Here are some other things that quite a few Americans believe in:
Astrology
Psychic Power
Atlantis
That space Aliens have landed on Earth
Ghosts
ESP
Levitation
The Bermuda Triangle
Big Foot/the Loch Ness Monster
Dowsing
Randman, should we teach these in public school, too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 1:31 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 10:32 PM nator has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 233 of 253 (274807)
01-01-2006 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by randman
01-01-2006 8:27 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
Sorry. I genuinely thought it was so obvious that it needed no explanation.
Would you please give board administration and everyone else the same break they have been extending to you by not jumping to conclusions and going off half-cocked. Most of your contributions here in your own thread are off-topic (e.g., vestigiality, whales, evolutionary fraud) or based upon misrepresentations (e.g., the Ruse quote) or are just complete rants (e.g., evolutionary fraud, evolutionary fraud, evolutionary fraud...).
It is fine for topics to range far-afield as long as it is tied into the original topic. I want you to stop treating every topic in which you participate as a point of departure for you to visit each and point in your litany of complaints against evolution. This board has tens of forums and thousands of topics, and that's because we try to keep discussion on-topic. Please help us achieve this goal.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 8:27 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 10:17 PM Admin has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 234 of 253 (274824)
01-01-2006 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by mark24
01-01-2006 8:39 PM


Re: Minority view
OK Mark, list the top 20 distinquishing features of existing, observed whales and explain how Pakicetus shares some of those.
Or you can retract your claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by mark24, posted 01-01-2006 8:39 PM mark24 has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 235 of 253 (274827)
01-01-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Admin
01-01-2006 9:14 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
The Ruse quote, if you will notice is something Brad McFall posted, and he provided a link for.
I responed to Brad's comments, and then shraf jumped in with the off-topic lead, as she usually does, following me around threads in this manner, without any hint of censure from you I might add.
This message has been edited by randman, 01-01-2006 10:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Admin, posted 01-01-2006 9:14 PM Admin has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 236 of 253 (274828)
01-01-2006 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by nator
01-01-2006 8:40 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
Here is the transcript quote. You are wrong as usual and in this case, ICR and Brad McFall who provided this quote on this thread are correct.
MORRIS: I do believe that there are failings in evolution. The fact is that these things can vary horizontally within ” within limits, but to go from one basic category to another, that’s never been observed by science, and it’s contrary to genetic laws, and it’s the faith of evolution. That’s what I think is the issue. We have a faith of evolution being taught in our public schools as ” masquerading as science.
DOBBS: Masquerading as science ” Michael, I have the funny feeling that you are not going to .
RUSE: Well, we have a ” I mean, you know, let’s face up to it. We have a faith in arithmetic, too. You know, I’m pretty committed to two plus two equals four. We’ve got a faith in (INAUDIBLE)
MORRIS: Now, Michael, you know that’s not a valid comparison.
RUSE: Of course it’s a valid comparison.
Archives – Uncommon Descent
Ruse says it is "a valid comparison" and so he does exactly what ICR says he does. If anyone is lying here, I'd have to say it is you Shraf.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by nator, posted 01-01-2006 8:40 PM nator has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 237 of 253 (274829)
01-01-2006 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by nator
01-01-2006 8:42 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
Because it's way off-topic. You can however check into the Great Debate thread I had with nuggins on the subject of recapitulation and see exactly where I do show that evolutionists in the field of embryology relied on overstatements and hoaxes.
This message has been edited by randman, 01-01-2006 10:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by nator, posted 01-01-2006 8:42 PM nator has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 238 of 253 (274830)
01-01-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by nator
01-01-2006 8:58 PM


Re: Minority view
Mods are ridiculous rants like this allowed? If so, please don't expect creationists and critics of evolution to treat the evos here with the sort of respect you would prefer.
Shraf, your comments are basically just a bunch of lies, as usual I might add.
I offer no conspiracy theories but hard facts on how evos have relied upon and taught wholesale errors as facts, some outright hoaxes, and in one instance for over 125 years.
As far as crashfrog's wife, I am sure you would be just as capable of doing research if evolution is or is not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 01-01-2006 8:58 PM nator has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 239 of 253 (274831)
01-01-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Percy
01-01-2006 8:58 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
Percy, it's interesting you claim sham and fraud by creationists, and usually without any real data to back up your claim, and even at times to me concerning YECism despite the fact I am not a YECer, and yet expect everyone not to mention when evos teach shams as factual????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 01-01-2006 8:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 01-02-2006 9:10 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 240 of 253 (274833)
01-01-2006 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by nator
01-01-2006 9:12 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
I don't most of those advocating themselves as a whole field and theory undergirding biology, and moreover, I don't them pushing shams, frauds, hoaxes, etc,...as factual, at least not on American children in schools.
When the proponents of those things are included in textbooks, I will consider then whether they abide by good standards or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by nator, posted 01-01-2006 9:12 PM nator 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