|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Pamboli
I'm not trying to prove a God like higher intelligence. I'm simply wanting to say that the existence of a God-like higher intelligence is one possibility and should be stateable in the scientific literature. If for one moment you assume that God did create can you see how bizaree your POV is? We can't allow that possibility to be stated - it's not scientific. But God would say - you fool - I did create it all!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Pamboli
The IC arguement is that most cellular and physiological systems examined at the molecular level display 'irreducible complexity'. That after it is reduced to it's essential components there are no examples in the literature, at the molecular level, demomstrating the discovery or even hypothesis of conceivable gradual steps of evoltuion that maintain some selectable function all the way. It proves nothing but is highly suggestive of a higher intelligence. Behe examined the moelcuar evolution literature and in 1995 no studies address this issue. 80% cover evolution within protein families, 15% cover chemical evoltuion experiments and 5% cover mathematical treatments but no (out of tens of thousands) papers identify gradual steps of evoltuion. The story sold to the layman is a bluff. At the organismal level eveoltuionists have got away for years with just so stories (feathers were used for catching prey etc) but at the molecular level Darwin's 'Black Box'is opened and these arguements fall apart because we see all of the components and discover that a certain minimal subset is required for function. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, I've only read the books.
quote: But this is not true. Why would we teach it. You have not begun to answer so many questions we have asked you. Why not?
quote: Actually, I was asking YOU to explain it.
quote: The percentage is exceedingly low. Especially when their fields are considered.
quote: It intereprets only some of the data. You have to ignore acres of geological information to come to these conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Well TB, I am not sure what you are looking for in a syllabus or a course, but I teach catastrophism and the Noachian flood every single semester for the past 8 years. I also teach it in a course I taught on pseudoscience called "How to think about weird things" for three semesters. I can point you to another college course that deals extensively with creationist versus conventional views. Do you still want to claim these courses do not exist? The bottom line clincher is when you bring a student to an outcrop and ask them to explain the features of the outcrop in terms of (a) a global flood that occurred in a years time and (b)conventional geology. The answers, even from creationists, are amazing.
cheers Joe Meert Cheers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
Even my tiny summary addresses most of your concerns. It does not prove anything but it raises the possibility that this is how it happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Joe
Do you descirbe the flood model as I did in my two paragrpahs or do you create a straw man? Why don't you post your power points or drop an excerpt of them here and we'll see. I suspect you create a straw man because I have never seen a mainstremaer not do that. I would love to be pleasantly surprised.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Your model IS a straw man and is poorly thought out and poorly documented. It would be a great disservice to present your ideas as scientific when they are unpublished musings on a website (although it would make a great example of how NOT to do science!). We DO and I Do point them in the direction of ICR and AIG documents. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
I would love to hear how you describe the model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Then you are free to take my course. Based on the fact that you are unable to accurately syntesize modern geologic thought on these pages, I doubt you'd get much from the course. Then again, I'm always surprised. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
The actual truth of the matter is that the sorts of questions flood geologists ask about the data are not routinely asked by mainstream scientists. You don't expect non-marine beds to be correlated across a continent so you don't look for it. You don't expect layering to be primarily flood depoists so even though it looks like flood deposits you interperet it otherwise. You wont agree but that is our thesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Does this mean that you are not going to answer my question about the main deposit type related to epeiric seas? If you can't answer such question, you cannot justify having your introductory statements included in a syllabus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I am pleased that you are so knowledgable about geologists, TB. You seem to know what questions we ask, what our biases are, and how basically incompetent the giants of the science must have been.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: In some cases, we might expect non-marine beds to be correlated across a continent. Why do you think your claim is demonstrably false? After you answer, I will give you an example where non-marine beds are expected to be correlated on a continental scale! You are an amateur geologist and statements like this show you've much to learn. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
What's your point about the main epeiric deposit type?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
I'm not saying mainstream geologists are incompetant but that becasue of a digital flood/no-flood decision you are now on the wrong track.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024