|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: 2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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,....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Spawning a new thread about Whales to keep this one from going too far...wait for it...out to sea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Good, then you won't have any trouble answering the questions I ask in Message #199 of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Sorry. I genuinely thought it was so obvious that it needed no explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024