Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 83 (12594)
07-02-2002 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Mister Pamboli
07-02-2002 11:53 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-02-2002 11:53 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-03-2002 12:03 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 83 (12596)
07-02-2002 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Mister Pamboli
07-02-2002 11:56 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-02-2002 11:56 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-03-2002 12:13 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 33 of 83 (12600)
07-02-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
07-01-2002 12:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, you show me a high school geology text or syllabus which has anything like this in it.
Well, I've only read the books.
quote:
The point is not a catastrophism issue per se but that a global flood could have generated most of the column in one hit.
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:
You want to bring up Mancos Shale in a high school 2 paragraph intro to flood geology?
Actually, I was asking YOU to explain it.
quote:
We can go back and forth all day rebutting each other. That is not the point of a 2-paragraph intro. The point is that multiple PhDed geologists believe that a global flood is called for by the data.
The percentage is exceedingly low. Especially when their fields are considered.
quote:
It is an alternative way to interpret the data. I find it hard to believe that you can't accept that in any sense but I have to live with that.
It intereprets only some of the data. You have to ignore acres of geological information to come to these conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2002 12:03 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Joe Meert, posted 07-02-2002 9:24 PM edge has not replied
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 9:27 PM edge has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 34 of 83 (12609)
07-02-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by edge
07-02-2002 8:49 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by edge, posted 07-02-2002 8:49 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 9:30 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 83 (12611)
07-02-2002 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by edge
07-02-2002 8:49 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by edge, posted 07-02-2002 8:49 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by edge, posted 07-02-2002 10:39 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 83 (12612)
07-02-2002 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Joe Meert
07-02-2002 9:24 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Joe Meert, posted 07-02-2002 9:24 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Joe Meert, posted 07-02-2002 9:40 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 37 of 83 (12614)
07-02-2002 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tranquility Base
07-02-2002 9:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 9:30 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 9:48 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 83 (12618)
07-02-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Joe Meert
07-02-2002 9:40 PM


I would love to hear how you describe the model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Joe Meert, posted 07-02-2002 9:40 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Joe Meert, posted 07-02-2002 10:24 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 39 of 83 (12620)
07-02-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tranquility Base
07-02-2002 9:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I would love to hear how you describe the model.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 9:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 10:30 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 83 (12623)
07-02-2002 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Joe Meert
07-02-2002 10:24 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Joe Meert, posted 07-02-2002 10:24 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by edge, posted 07-02-2002 10:41 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 43 by Joe Meert, posted 07-02-2002 10:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 41 of 83 (12627)
07-02-2002 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tranquility Base
07-02-2002 9:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 9:27 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 11:38 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 42 of 83 (12628)
07-02-2002 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tranquility Base
07-02-2002 10:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 10:30 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 11:40 PM edge has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 43 of 83 (12630)
07-02-2002 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tranquility Base
07-02-2002 10:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 10:30 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 11:43 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 83 (12638)
07-02-2002 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by edge
07-02-2002 10:39 PM


Edge
What's your point about the main epeiric deposit type?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by edge, posted 07-02-2002 10:39 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by edge, posted 07-02-2002 11:51 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 83 (12639)
07-02-2002 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by edge
07-02-2002 10:41 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by edge, posted 07-02-2002 10:41 PM edge 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