You geniuses you!

Dear Franky,Add these links in your favorites. These complete previous links suggested by other posters.Strony nie znaleziono - Wydzia Geologiihttp://www.jbc.org/search.dtlNot Found | The Company of BiologistsSciELO - Fascculos:Revista Brasileira de BiologiaDenesha

quote:

---

1. Your premisis that creos bury their heads into the Bible and are blind to obsrvation and study of science, archeology and nature is just not the case. Our scientists, archeologists and researchers have museums, schools, field workers and all the same as yours. It's just that we interpret what is observed differntly.

---

I am arguing that they ARE burying their heads. Creationists do not interpret things differently, they interpret them in a willfully ignorant way. Any scientist worth his grit would not submit theories that have been falsified by the data, which includes a young earth. You remind me of the Inquisition, saying that the earth is the center of the universe, not because the evidence supports it, but because the bible supports it. Reality is not forced to follow the dictum of the Bible.

quote:

---

2. The more I read you people, the more it appears that the modern secular science class room discourages common sense, logic and plain old wisdom. For example, we all know by observation that in order for any of us humans to produce anything complex, much thought, planning and exacting work must be exercised in order to come up with anything.

---

Any engineer worth their grit knows that genetic algorithms are able to create sophisticated and effecient designs without the intervention of an intelligence. Secondly, you are talking about the construction of a non-reproducing system, which does require hands on molding. However, reproducing organisms are not bound to such a need, and can develop without the intervention of an intelligence. Perhaps you missed out on the lessons about common sense, logic, and plain old wisdom. Maybe you shouldn't get in a pissing contest with people who actually understand the evidence instead of a politicized data set only meant to further religious views instead of scientific knowledge.

I agree with the above; though I'd express it rather differently and perhaps more positively.The web is a powerful source of on-line information, and since this is an on-line forum it tends to be particularly useful for posters here. If you use the web effectively, you can indeed give the impression of great intelligence and knowledge, beyond what is strictly accurate.I'm an instance of this phenomenon. Many of my posts are substantially based on information I've looked up prior to posting. If you spoke to me in the street, I'd be a bit less quick with the depth of information.It's not entirely fraudulent, however. The web acts as a kind of knowledge amplifier. If you know a bit about the subject then you can leverage that to come across as a genius. That is not the objective; the objective is simply to give the best information you can. Others who are familiar with the net probably recognize this and it is all to the good; but it can certainly look daunting to a newcomer. The ability to locate and present relevant information from on-line is very useful for getting a substantive engagement with a subject.The clue is to have a bit of knowledge to start with, so that you know what to look for. You recall a factoid of some kind, and seek out a source for that, and then pick up the keys to get more detail. It also helps to recognize quality information. If the details of some subject are new, then you should try to confirm from several sources, or followup on some references in the first source you found. This sometimes requires also using a library and printed journals. I'll do this also; but it takes a bit longer. It means a time lag of a couple of days on a contributions, but the personal benefits from this kind of checking are considerable.A decent general background knowledge also helps a lot. Read widely, and also read some of the text books in a subject; not only popularizations. You can get an impression for brilliance quite quickly by this means; because many folks don't spend much time educating themselves, and because you soon become able to use the web more effectively to leverage what you have learned.You mention some things to avoid; apparently with a view that they should be avoided lest other people yell at you. In my opinion, there are good reasons to avoid these practices simply out of a desire to write well and give useful engagement in the forum. So I agree also with your suggestions for what to avoid; but I would express the reasons for avoiding them much more directly.

• Quote to get information relating to a matter; not just an opinion of an expert. This would be my primary rule with quoting.
• Don't post the links alone. It kills discussion, or else requires other people to write up your position as well as their response.
• Don't plagiarise. If you cut and paste text from any sourse into a post, then it should be plainly indicated and credited as someone else's work; and the source should be given. This is just a basic matter of intellectual honesty.
• Do add comments of your own, in your own words. Credit the source of information you have used, if one stands out, but take advantage of your own direct involvement in the forum to draw out and emphasize or apply or criticize the bits of immediate relevance.
• Try to keep the amount of quoted material brief, and refer others back to the source for more detail. I often apply ellipses (...) to remove sections of dubious relevance.
• Quote the source you use. One practice which I find a bit off putting is quoting some primary references at second hand, by quoting a secondary reference that quotes in turn; but not citing the secondary source actually used. If you quote a reference, try to quote it direct from the original. If this is not possible, then by all means quote extracts made available from another commentator, and then cite that source which you used.

Follow my first, primary rule, and quote mining will never be an issue. Quote mining is a particularly unhelpful mode of engagement, where a few sentences are taken from some authority, often in such a way that actually misrepresents the authority, without actually adding useful data to a subject. Quote miners almost never use the original sources, but rely on compliations by others... usually without any acknowledgement. This violates fundamental principles of integrity in scholarship. A quick scattershot of many quotes from a range of individuals all expressing some opinion congenial to the poster but without adding data to a subject, is a red flag that the poster is a poser who does not know much about a subject and could not engage it on their own behalf.Cheers -- SylasPS. In Message 13 buzsaw also writes: That is not actually true. You can't easily tell from most websites on scientific matters whether or not the author sees a supernatural dimension or divine plan in the universe. Many Christians, for example, work entirely effectively in mainstream science, and a paper they may write on, say, biological evolution or geological dating or cosmological processes, will quite likely not attempt to deal with the belief that all the natural world is a creation of God. The information provided does, of course, refute the views of creationists. But the creationist view which sets up natural processes for a thing as being an alternative to creation sets up a dichotomy which many consider theologically very naive. Christians at work in science recognize God as creator of all the natural world.

You missread me. My point was that the conventional common sense doesn't wash with the complexity of the universe apart from supernatural intelligence factored in as to origins. LOL. You talk as if science is god and as acquainted with the universe as if it/they/you were there observing every age of it's eternal existence. Nothing in my post dimishes the fact that it is complicated. That's why I said it couldn't come about by chancey NS. And of course much of common sense and logic must be jetisoned to formulate explanations void of the intelligent supernatural. Common sense, logic and wisdom (as I put it in my post) goes a looooong ways in arriving at the truth in any matter, including this subject.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

And my point is two-fold: a) Why would the creation of something so vast as the universe be a process you would expect to submit to common sense; and b) whenever common sense conficts with evidence gathered through the scientific method, it is common sense that must give way. Every post you make diminishes the fact that it is complicated, because you insist on preserving connon sense, when everybody knows that all "common sense" is in the first place is lazy reasoning - loose guidelines that people construct because they tend to be true most - but not all - of the time. And yet, the evidence proves you wrong. Not only does natural selection regularly create complicated things, the things that it creates are often more complicated than things created by intelligence.We don't come to the conclusion that complexity can arise from evolution because we want that to be so. We come to that conclusion because we observe it happening, and not always in biology. Common sense and logic must be totally jettisoned to even entertain notions of the supernatural in the first place. It's simply common sense that there's no such thing as the supernatural, Buz. Yet, where common sense conflicts with evidence arrived at via the scientific method, common sense must give way, because the scientific methodology is the superior epistomology.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-14-2004]

S, Indeed,
I started to paste and click info"" in the 80s in a 400level ecology class where we had to write an answer to the question if there is any progress"" in evolution. And sites such as EvC continue the phenomena in ligthening speed. we have come this way baby! Since the essay asked with the p- word I was able to be acually agnositic in non electric media wise and yet link my words in a way into its existence. The touble is the profs werent ready for this kind of stuff. I do very little net research having fun seeing instead where others attempt to make the white space appear out of no where.

quote:

---

I figure most of the websites you consider educational as much of a waste of time as you do the ones I consider educational. Like have you checked out the video clips of "The Exodus Revealed" yet and learned what there is to learn about that subject?

---

Buz, I am willing to bet that I have read a great deal more Creationist literature, both in print and on the web than you have read Biology or other science-type literature.I own at least a dozen Creationist books, like Woodmoreappe's Noah's Ark book, and Morris' classic, "What is Creation Science?".I regularly go check out ICR and AiG, and I always check out any cites sites that Creationists post here.Most of them, including ICR and AiG, continue to use the exact same refuted arguments that have remained unchanged for decades! The only way the arguments go away is because it finally becomes too embarassing for the site to continue to promote it.This happened some years ago with speciation; for decades, Creation 'scientists' insiste that speciation didn't happen. However, when scientists started producing new species in the lab, and when they began observing it in the field, the Creationists just sort of stopped saying that it couldn't happen because it just made them look too ridiculous for them to continue.On the other hand, how often do you head on over to TalkOrigins to get some up to date scientific information regarding Archeopteryx or the evidence for hominid evolution?

quote:

---

I don't know if you're a bunch of professors or what, every subject is flooded with awesome information and primary references... I have to know the secret, do you speed/photoread? Do you use a secret database of scientific journals? How do you do it!?

---

I'm president of the student philosophy association at my school. I have to know these stuff to keep people, especially religious people and creationists, at my school from blowing hot air out of their buttholes at our philosophy debates. Think of me as the judge that keeps an eye out for false info being distributed by ignorant people that think they're scholars.That and I read a lot of books.

Dear Lam,I think you could waste minimum time downloading and reading only PDF files from peer-reviewed journals. I need long sleep requirement so I can't read so much as I would like. Reducing the amount of necessary reading is a quite good alternative.
Fortunately, recent papers are 20 page sized and have a standard framework (abstract, dicussion, conclusion) allowing "fast reading".
Honestly, I prefer 10 papers from various authors rather than one single-author's large book dealing the same subject or related.Denesha

quote:

---

I think you could waste minimum time downloading and reading only PDF files from peer-reviewed journals. I need long sleep requirement so I can't read so much as I would like. Reducing the amount of necessary reading is a quite good alternative.
Fortunately, recent papers are 20 page sized and have a standard framework (abstract, dicussion, conclusion) allowing "fast reading".
Honestly, I prefer 10 papers from various authors rather than one single-author's large book dealing the same subject or related.

---

I agree in that papers are easier to get info from. Call me old fashion, I just like books much better. I think books make me remember stuff longer and encourage me to think more than papers.After all, books present more unbiased facts than papers.

quote:

---

The more I read you people, the more it appears that the modern secular science class room discourages common sense, logic and plain old wisdom.

---

Common sense tells us that the Sun orbits the Earth. Don't forget that people were burned alive by you common sense nuts for believing otherwise.Logic belongs to philosophy, not science.Plain old wisdom say that the woman should do nothing but stay home, make babies, and serve her husband. Let us not forget that plain old wisdom in the middle east and africa is subjecting millions of girls each year through genital mutilations.Do you really want your children and your children's children to go through life subjected to other people's common sense, logic (which isn't really logic at all), and plain old wisdom? You may want to, but I don't. I want my children to learn facts and how to use facts properly.

I don't think that is actually true. The one example sometimes raised in this regard is Giordano Bruno. However, this is almost certainly wrong. I wrote an article on this for TheologyWeb some time ago, which I'll repeat hereGiordano Bruno was not burned for his scientific ideas, but for metaphysical and theological heresies, in so far as we can tell.He was a pantheist, believing that God was a universal world-soul, and that all material things were manifestations of one infinite principle. He rejected the trinity, and the divinity of Jesus (whom he regarded as a kind of magician), he believed the devil would be saved; he rejected all authority, and much else besides. Copernicanism was comparatively minor as far as the church was concerned; indeed it was not formally heretical at this time.Bruno's scientific views were rather confused. He did consider the Earth to be one world among many, and commonly cited Copernicus. But he was no scientist himself, and relied upon magic and pure reason rather than empirical observations. The notion that his burning was connected with astronomy is commonly asserted; but there is no basis for this. In fact, indications are that he did not understand Copernican astronomy. He was a philosopher of considerable significance; but no scientist.An example of his philosophical reasoning, as given by Eric W. Weisstein
We don't have the records of his trial. He was burned long before the church declared Copernicanism to be heretical. Some useful background on Bruno is available in The Folly of Giordano Bruno by Prof. Richard W. Pogge, of Ohio State University. He presents good reasons for doubt that Copernicanism had anything to do with the heresy trial.A brief extract: That is, we in the modern age are impressed with Bruno because he espoused Copernicanism. We project that, without any evidential basis, back to the trial and presume that this was the issue for which he was burned. You can find any number of pages which assert this was the basis for his burning; what is lacking is any credible argument or evidence for this implausible notion. Agree and in that same spirit I am making the comments on burnings for heliocentrism. I don't know of any examples used except Bruno, and I think that example is erroneous.Cheers -- Sylas

No, rather common sense tells us that earthlings are still saying "the sun goes down" and that this is simply an age old coloqualism. Nobody was ever burned alive by Biblical fundamentalists. No, good science considers that which is presently observed, that order does not naturally emerge from disorder. That's logical. .........And wisdom attests to the fact that for the first 175 years of the greatest and the most productive nation on the planet the woman has been in the home keeping house and nurturing the children. No, I want my children to continue to use inherrant common sense, logic and wisdom in everyting, despite the incessant illusionistic advice from the secularist community to the contrary.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

That happens all the time. Liquid water is disorderly. Ice crystals are orderly. Are you saying that liquid water never becomes ice, naturally?Well, I live in Minnesota, so you can take it from me that liquid water forms ice, naturally, for about 9 months out of the year, here. There's no such thing as inherent common sense. All common sense is cultural.

quote:

---

No, rather common sense tells us that earthlings are still saying "the sun goes down" and that this is simply an age old coloqualism. Nobody was ever burned alive by Biblical fundamentalists.

---

Ok, I admit that I was exaggerating a bit there. However, I still maintain that common sense can't really be used to accurately describe truth. Just think of how many things you believed as a child when you used common sense that you later learned through school to be false.

quote:

---

No, good science considers that which is presently observed, that order does not naturally emerge from disorder. That's logical.

---

Uh... are we going back to the 2nd law of thermodynamics again? If so, I'm tired of this argument already. You can go back to the various threads that we've already discussed about this.

quote:

---

.........And wisdom attests to the fact that for the first 175 years of the greatest and the most productive nation on the planet the woman has been in the home keeping house and nurturing the children.

---

I am more worried about individual personal freedom for all individuals than sacrificing "the few" to make the rest happy.

quote:

---

No, I want my children to continue to use inherrant common sense, logic and wisdom in everyting, despite the incessant illusionistic advice from the secularist community to the contrary.

---

If you really want to, you go you. Just don't blame your kid when he blames you for not telling him in the first place that the Earth is round instead of flat, and the sky isn't some kind of ceiling for the Earth where it serves as the walking space for heaven. Why did I bring this up? My parents encouraged me to use common sense and used the "goddunit" explaination for virtually every question I had while discouraging me from believing what they teach in school. It took me a while to get out of that mindset, and I swore to myself I will never do that to my children.But again, you go you! if you think that is the way to go for your children.