Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 211 of 253 (274755)
01-01-2006 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by randman
01-01-2006 5:56 PM


Re: Minority view
You mean if students were subject to evo standards for cladistics
Yeah, heaven forbid the student learn science from scientists.
Perhaps the chemistry students shouldn't be "brain-washed" about the periodic table.
calling a land mammal with virtually no whale features at all, the first whale
Let me write this another way for you:
Call a land mammal (with on a few uniquely whale features) the first whale.
When I look at a model-T, I see 4 tires, I see a steering wheel. I don't see airbags, I don't see a CD player, I don't see an arm rest, or AC. So the fact that you'd suggest that a model-t was the first car if pretty silly just because it has a few identifiably automotive features.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 5:56 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 6:44 PM Nuggin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 212 of 253 (274761)
01-01-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Nuggin
01-01-2006 6:34 PM


Re: Minority view
Yea, pakicetus resembles a whale like a Model T resembles a Chevy? Like I said, if critics could point out the nonsense you guys teach kids, as evidence, side by side with evo claims, people would be laughing at evos, and they would be forced to rely on sober, measuredm and scientific claims, something evolutionism has thus far never done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Nuggin, posted 01-01-2006 6:34 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Nuggin, posted 01-01-2006 6:55 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 213 of 253 (274762)
01-01-2006 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Nuggin
01-01-2006 6:29 PM


Re: Minority view
Nuggins, do they even teach the Bible in public school?
LOL
It is EXTREMELY TELLING though that you associate teaching the Bible with teaching evolution. I doubt you meant it as a concession that evolution is essentially quasi-religious in nature, but there you go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Nuggin, posted 01-01-2006 6:29 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Nuggin, posted 01-01-2006 6:56 PM randman has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 214 of 253 (274766)
01-01-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by randman
01-01-2006 6:44 PM


A short play by Nuggin
if critics could point out the nonsense you guys teach kids
Teacher: Good morning class, today we're going to "teach the contraversy". Behind me you'll see two pictures. The one on the left is Pakicetus, a four legged animal from the Eocene, it lived roughly 40-50 million years ago. The picture on the right is a sperm whale, alive today. You'll notice that the skull of Pakicetus has a some very interesting features. These are found in Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, and Aetiocetus - taking us from this primative ancestor through to modern whales.
A student stirs.
Teacher: Yes, Randman?
Randman: Um, you said you were going to teach the contraversy.
Teacher: Yes, of course. Another explaination is that the modern whale just spontaneously appeared a few thousand years ago, that it has no ancestors and the more primative, and increasingly more whale like creatures we see stretching back through time either simply didn't exist at all, or also spontaneously appeared as is.
Randman: Your first theory is ridiculous. I'm laughing at it. The second theory is so much more likely.
Suddenly, a whale appears in the classroom, crushing them all flat.
Randman: (From under the whale) See!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 6:44 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 7:02 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 215 of 253 (274767)
01-01-2006 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by randman
01-01-2006 6:46 PM


Re: Minority view
It is EXTREMELY TELLING though that you associate teaching the Bible with teaching evolution.
You suggested teaching the controversy. The two sides are Evolution and Creationism. How do we teach the contraversy without bringing up the Bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 6:46 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 7:03 PM Nuggin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 216 of 253 (274770)
01-01-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Nuggin
01-01-2006 6:55 PM


Re: A short play by Nuggin
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what teaching the controversy is. Teaching the controversy is just presenting the truth of what the data says and does not say, and so in this example, we would point out that evos claim this creature as a whale, but in fact:
It possesses no whale features.
It is called a whale based on a slightly expanded aural cavity, which can be explained in many various ways.
It is a 4 legged, running, land mammal, with no distinguishing characteristics that separate whales from other whale ancestors.
The story of evo claims in respect give one a good idea on how evos use data, first making wild overstatements that Pakicetus was aquatic or semi-aquatic, etc, etc,....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Nuggin, posted 01-01-2006 6:55 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Nuggin, posted 01-01-2006 7:11 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 217 of 253 (274772)
01-01-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Nuggin
01-01-2006 6:56 PM


Re: Minority view
Teaching the controversy is not teaching creationism but teaching what critics say about evolution in order to expose the many myths, mistatements, overstatements and hoaxes that evos rely on to convince people ToE is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Nuggin, posted 01-01-2006 6:56 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Nuggin, posted 01-01-2006 7:13 PM randman has not replied
 Message 230 by nator, posted 01-01-2006 8:58 PM randman has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 218 of 253 (274779)
01-01-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by randman
01-01-2006 7:02 PM


Re: A short play by Nuggin
Spawning a new thread about Whales to keep this one from going too far...wait for it...out to sea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 7:02 PM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 219 of 253 (274780)
01-01-2006 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by randman
01-01-2006 7:03 PM


Re: Minority view
Teaching the controversy is not teaching creationism
That may be your view, but I seriously doubt that that's what the religious right thinks they are pushing. They want Jewish Creationism taught as is in school, and/or they want evolution struck from the school.
Talking about how we test data is perfectly fine, and belongs in the class. That's called "scientific method". The people pushing "teach the controversy" are pushing Creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 7:03 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 220 of 253 (274790)
01-01-2006 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by randman
01-01-2006 1:21 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
quote:
Percy, it's not a potshot at all.
Good, then you won't have any trouble answering the questions I ask in Message #199 of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 1:21 PM randman has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 221 of 253 (274791)
01-01-2006 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by randman
01-01-2006 1:21 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
randman writes:
Percy, it's not a potshot at all.
If you want to go on for several paragraphs explaining your rationale, as you just did, then it's not a potshot. A two-sentence declaration with no rationale, as was the case with your previous messages, is a potshot, especially when not on-topic. Such salvos are usually issued in an attempt to draw intemperament respones, and we attempt to discourage that here.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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 222 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 8:27 PM Admin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 222 of 253 (274794)
01-01-2006 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Admin
01-01-2006 8:13 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
Sorry. I genuinely thought it was so obvious that it needed no explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Admin, posted 01-01-2006 8:13 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Admin, posted 01-01-2006 9:14 PM randman has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 223 of 253 (274795)
01-01-2006 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by randman
01-01-2006 1:21 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
quote:
Claiming that ToE is as true as 2 plus 2 equals 4 in an educational setting is such a gross overstatement and shows such a bizarre lack of understanding of knowledge, that indeed it shows that Dr Ruse in arguing for evolution has not clue as to what the nature of science is.
Michael Ruse is both a Philosopher of Science and Historian of Science. It is, in fact, his life's work to understand the nature of science.
That's why he has been on the stand as an expert witness to explain to the courts what science actually is.
If you read something of his that seemed overly simplistic or wrong regarding the nature of science, it is quite likely that you, randman, are
1) taking what he said out of context so as to change the meaning (quite possible if you read his words from a creationist source, which I have found at the ICR website which refers to something Ruse might have said but doesn't actually quote him here)
2) deliberately misrepresenting his intent, or
3) you just don't understand what he meant.
Perhaps, if you are going to beat Ruse up for something he said you would be so kind as to post the actual quote, in context, for all of us to refer to.
(in several searches for the original quote, I have only been able to come up with references to Ruse talking specifically about the evolution of mathematical knowledge.)

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 224 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 8:34 PM nator has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 224 of 253 (274797)
01-01-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by nator
01-01-2006 8:29 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
Shraf, frankly I assumed Dr Ruse that was quoted in the newspaper article linked to was not Micheal Ruse since I am aware he holds the view that evolution has been presented and at times is, and still has aspects, more indicative of a quasi-religion than hard science. It sounds like you are a little unaware of the things he has written since in some respects he agrees with me, and not you, on evolutionism.
But if you think whoever Dr Ruse is, and it may be Michael Ruse, is misquoted, take it up with the press, not me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by nator, posted 01-01-2006 8:29 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by nator, posted 01-01-2006 8:52 PM randman has not replied
 Message 229 by Zhimbo, posted 01-01-2006 8:56 PM randman has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 225 of 253 (274798)
01-01-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by randman
01-01-2006 5:56 PM


Re: Minority view
randman,
You mean if students were subject to evo standards for cladistics, and years of virtual brainwashing, then calling a land mammal with virtually no whale features at all, the first whale, could be something they would accept. So we want the right to maintain our absurd overstatements and propaganda technigues because otherwise they might not buy things we want to teach on top of the initial overstatements and illogic.
For classification purposes cladistics does not assume evolution, so that's your first delusion shot down in flames. And yet Pakicetus is grouped with in cetacea. Why? Put simply because in detail it shares more morphology with the cetacea than anything else. That's your second delusion shot down in flames, Pakicetus does have "whale features".
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 5:56 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 10:14 PM mark24 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