If we are all descended from Noah ...

quote:

---

That was just the first (not the only) poll I found in direct contradiction to your bogus numbers.

---

WS: We learned much about the pollsters during the last presidential election. The ones I trust are statistically sound, which tend to net similar results. The pollsters with clear agendas, and organizations that purchase polls in support of their agends, are not taken seriously here. It's wise to examine their methods, how they select targets, and how they construct questions. For instance, the incredible pollsters call making a short statement like "we are certain most good Americans like yourself would not wish to be part of slaughter of innocent animals, so would you say you are strongly against commercialization of animals for meat production, moderately against it,... or strongly in favor of the slaughter of innocent animals?" I responded to such a poll recently. I wish I had recorded it. Most people would not say they were in favor of that scenario, but upon hanging up would resume consuming meat. What the pollsters want is what they will likely get, in this case a majority of Americans 'moderately opposing commerical slughter houses', but in reality most do consume meat without regrets and don't support PETA.

quote:

---

You are in absolutely no position to speak for all Americans either by the way.

---

WS: I am not trying to do that, but can come closer to the average American sentiments than you can in Germany.

quote:

---

But then you will only accept polls that support your view and dismiss all others obviously. I guess that limits you to polling creationists as to whether they believe in creationism...

---

WS: Contrarily, I find many times those credible pollsters report bad news about Christians in America, such as the embarassing numbers about Bible reading among people claiming to be Christian. I do reject polls known to be biased. All polls are ordered and paid for by some group or individual, so it is necessary to examine the groups.
For instance, Barna was commissioned by a consortium of many Christian denominations tht are basically competing. Since the results both please and displeased every denomination, I can believe their poll was accurate, being unbiased, overall being a less than excellent report on the American Church collectively.Several secular pollsers have tackled the evolution/creation issue because it stimulates interest and business. The ones most trusted in America have consistently reported similar results, that America remains about equally divided over the issue, with a slight increase in desire for teaching both subjects. It appears to me they don't particularly want students learning one over another, but do think its time the student is prepared to discuss the issue intelligently, not blindsided by some one knowledgeable in both sides. Most Americans who think they believe in either one couldn't give two or three accurate reasons why, except to appeal to some authoritative source, such as "our old textbooks wouldn't be wrong, would they", or "I believe whatever the Bible says about it, whatever that is, I forgot". It's just something they quiclkly forget if they don't entertain it often in their post education years.I have read many articles about this problem, both from evolutionist sites, and creationist sites, deploring the lack of science knowledge among Americans. He pollsters have since begun asking people their education level, income and profession, revealing that the better educated do have more reasons for believing the way they do, but the split remains the same until those of academia are examined, where the majority believe in evolution and have many reasons for their belief. But keep in mind they are all averaged to conclude the nation is split slightly in favor of creation.[Fixed poor quoting technique. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-20-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Me:
Sorry - this is a field I know little about. I was intrigued by the reference to transportation!I think you might be wrong about Worship on the Sabbath - I think that not turning up to church still sends you to hell. But who decides which of the inerrant words of God can be ignored due to 'cultural' reasons? I would have thought that this drives a bit of a hole through fundamentalism?[/B][/QUOTE]WS: By transportation, I include everything concerning travel, such as on the Sabbath, and what sort of animals one may ride, etc. The Sabbath was a sign for the Hebrews concerning their own covenant. Christians have a new covenant as prophesied would come after the prophesied collapse of the old covenant. That is why Jesus, a Rabbi- BTW, knew it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath, and collect grain in passing on journey on the sabbath, eating food collected on that day of the week, since David did it with blessing while pursued by Saul, as recounted by Jesus. David and his band of warriors ate the shewbread reserved for priests to avoid perishing from hunger, given them by the priest. In the days of Jesus the Pharisees had made almost a new religion around the Sabbath, making it a burden on the people instead of a rest. The sabbath 'enhanced rules' got so bad the Jews couldn't respond to an invasion on the sabbath since they were forbidden to journey or work in sny way that day, allowing Jerusalem to be overrun without resistance, another example of error in doctrine concerning transportation on the sabbath. It didn't come from God. The sabbath he instituted for Israel was for the benefit of man, not for God.The Christian 'sabbath' has been Sunday since they worshipped on the day of the Resurrection, which could not possibly be Saturday. But staying out of Church has no bearing on going to hell. People in India have been converting to Christianity, but have no churches. They meet in fields under trees, or huts, sometimes in churches, and on days they can manage it, attempting to meet on Sundays if possible. It isn't a "works" thing, but faith. What matters is a clean heart in Christ.Paul decided most of the cultural pecularities by clear statements as to what is required, what is advisable, what is wise or unwise, what is not at all adhered to. All the apostles did meet at the council at Jerusalem early on to decide whether they would retain male circumcision, and other laws demanded by Jewish converts, that the Gentile beleivers should adhere to at least some of the major doctrines of the Jews. Peter and the others compromised in Acts 15 to command the Church to avoid fornication, strangled meat, and consuming blood as the pagans liked to do, out of respect for their Jewish brethren, who BTW were the sum and total of the Church the first 7 years after Pentecost. Nobody had a cow over that, being quite reasonable and in harmony with the teachings of Christ.[This message has been edited by Wordswordsman, 09-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
As far as I'm concerned they either have to accept the entire bible as the literal inerrant word of their god and obey all of it, or not at all. There is no middle ground with something like this. There are far too many Cut&Paste Christians around who only follow the good parts and ignore all of the nasty bits.

---

WS: Since you are not part of that, your opinion is pointless, ey? If you were right, then I would have to carry this out concerning you if I could catch you in the field:
1 Kings 18:40
And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.Or, I might be forced to comply with 1 Kings 22:53
For he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had done.and bow to Baal. Silly.Or maybe go kill some homosexuals in the gay bar downtown: Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.Or kill some incestuous/adulterous folks: Leviticus 20:11
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.But, I learned in the New Testament those laws were not possibly kept, seeing that lacking in one left the "lawkeeper" guilty of all. The law was given to define what sin was. Notice that God mercifully added the commandments of sacrifice to cover the lack of lawkeeping, finally supplying His own Son as the final sacrifice. Jesus came to introduce the love of God, making it possible for me to hate the sin, but minister with love to the sinner, no matter how sinful. I must administer the good news of Christ as well as warn of the far more hazardous ultimate end and punishment of unrepentant sinners, far more disastrous than being stoned to death in this life.Obviously there are many things in the Bible that were true events, and were the current commandments of God, and that were sometimes quoted lies necessary for a story to be told with understanding. No reasonable student of the Bible would want to keep the sayings of Job's friends, though some Christians have taken their words as instructions for life ignorantly until they figured it out or were told of the contradictions between their bad advice, and what God had to say about life.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002][/B][/QUOTE][Added missing close quote. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-20-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:The point about the Sabbath is that the OT specifies that the seventh day is the day of rest. This is Saturday, as reckoned by the Jews have been tracking it since before the rise of Christianity and upon whose religion Christianity is supposedly founded. Yet nowhere does the bible change the day of worship to Sunday. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe this change was made by the Romans when Christianity was adopted as state religion, to align the Christian holy day with certain pagan holy days.[/B][/QUOTE]WS: It was sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.Consider this:
Mark 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.The Sabbath was past, Sunday was that day of the resurrection of Christ.Acts 20:7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.That same day was the pattern for believers to meet on, with some exceptions. In the first centuries some Christians kept both Saturday and Sunday, in respect of Judaism and their own lineage of the Jews/Israel/Judah. Constatine ended that by decree, being an improper compromise, Saturday having to do with the second day Jesus was in the tomb. There was nothing to celebrate about that.Some few Christian sects adhere to this day to a Saturday Sabbath, which is not harmful unless they teach a person has taken the mark of the beast by worshipping on Sunday. According to Paul there is no holy day or holy month in God's eyes.Col. 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:Read the context if in doubt...Every day is holy and should be appreciated before Him. It is simply custom, not by commandment, we worship on any one day. It has always been considerd better to have our own day. Many Christians still attend Jewish worship on Saturdays, church on Sunday, out of love for the Jews and a desire to demonstrate the love of Christ in a special way. But it is obviously beneficial for Christians to have at least one specific day a week universally agreed as the time for corporate worship without having to set days along the way. Most of the world conditions precludes random days because of the difficulty of getting out the word as to changes. Throngs of people all over the world are in the habit of journeying once weekly to churches or meetings near or more likely far away, every Sunday.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Sniff, sniff??? That smell is really getting bad. Someone should see a doctor about that gas problem.

---

WS: Sounds like a real problem. First, try wiping your upper lip. Odors don't travel through etherspace, you know, so it obviously originates with you or someone around you in that room. Perish the thought, it could be gangrene gas leaking from your ears. It happens when organs, such as the brain, begins to die. Excess bitterness coupled with habitual unrepentant lying kills both body and soul. Better start praying for your health to be restored, and improve your personal care.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:

quote:

---

That was just the first (not the only) poll I found in direct contradiction to your bogus numbers.

---

​

​

WS: We learned much about the pollsters during the last presidential election. The ones I trust are statistically sound, which tend to net similar results.

---

​

​

Do personally have any background in statistics with which to evaluate what is or is not statistically sound? How do you know polls that net similar results are not affected by the same biases?

---

WS: I had two statistics courses in college, elementary statistics, and intermediate statistics. But it isn't necessary to know anything about that application for this purpose. All the pollsters have been analyzed by statisticians who try to grade them according to their methods. That got really hot when the polls began to favor Bush over Gore, then some polls suddenly arose favoring Gore. Questioning that, it became evident some polls were manipulated out of desperation to win the race. Now, the more credible polls post the basis of their polls, providing the certified facts of how they collect their data. You have to be willing to subscribe to get that information now, starting off free.

quote:

---

The pollsters with clear agendas, and organizations that purchase polls in support of their agends, are not taken seriously here.

​

So you would have to eliminate all polls by religious organizations

---

WS: Not if they commission credible pollsters. The pollsters form the questions and conduct the survey to preserve their own credibility. If they mess up too much, people stop hiring them. The client may sumbit requests for answers to certain questions, but those questions are framed by the pollsters. However, leading questions are not proper, recognized by people like Gallup.

quote:

---

It's wise to examine their methods, how they select targets, and how they construct questions. For instance, the incredible pollsters call making a short statement like "we are certain most good Americans like yourself would not wish to be part of slaughter of innocent animals, so would you say you are strongly against commercialization of animals for meat production, moderately against it,... or strongly in favor of the slaughter of innocent animals?" I responded to such a poll recently. I wish I had recorded it. Most people would not say they were in favor of that scenario, but upon hanging up would resume consuming meat. What the pollsters want is what they will likely get, in this case a majority of Americans 'moderately opposing commerical slughter houses', but in reality most do consume meat without regrets and don't support PETA.

​

Actually, I don't completely disagree with what you say in this paragraph. When I see a poll that says 70% of Americans support this or that I think it is heavily dependent on how the question is phrased. And the whole point of my posting the poll results I found was to indicate that you can find polls that support whatever you want and that using google is hardly a way to research a subject.

---

WS: All you are likely to find on the internet (free) is reports on poll results, not actual data from the polls. But when organizations such as news agencies report the data, it is normally factual if the various organizations agree.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are in absolutely no position to speak for all Americans either by the way.

---

​

WS: I am not trying to do that, but can come closer to the average American sentiments than you can in Germany.

---

​

I don't think that is necessarily accurate. Most Germans I meet are far better educated in history (including American) than most Americans. There is also far better news coverage of both U.S. and world events here. I come from New York and you are in Arizona...do you think you are a better judge of "American" sentiments in New York where I still have regular contact with a variety of people than me?

---

WS: Unfortunately you are still not all that familiar with the USA. The 'AR' is for Arkansas, not Arizona ('AZ'). Now how can you be so certain Germans are more knowledgeable of American history? By what standard of comparison? As for your question, I've been in pretty good contact this year with New Yorkers by involvement in 911 discussion groups which are heavily represented by them, plus we view the frequent interviews and opinions of those people on tv.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But then you will only accept polls that support your view and dismiss all others obviously. I guess that limits you to polling creationists as to whether they believe in creationism...

---

​

WS: Contrarily, I find many times those credible pollsters report bad news about Christians in America, such as the embarassing numbers about Bible reading among people claiming to be Christian. I do reject polls known to be biased.

---

​

What is your criteria for distinguishing biased versus unbiased polling and please be specific.

---

WS: Randomness of the sample, size of sample, and lisings of the questions asked in the sample, mainly. I also consider the client. If it is an ABC TV interactive poll, I doubt it if the program caters to political liberal viewers (which is the norm for ABC), where relatively few conservatives would be aware of the poll. Naturally, the poll would reflect the liberal viewpoint. There are almost no conservative-led interactive polls in the news orgs, found mostly in paid programming.

quote:

---

All polls are ordered and paid for by some group or individual, so it is necessary to examine the groups. For instance, Barna was commissioned by a consortium of many Christian denominations tht are basically competing. Since the results both please and displeased every denomination, I can believe their poll was accurate, being unbiased, overall being a less than excellent report on the American Church collectively.

​

It is also formally possible that this was a political tactic in order to avoid showing preference for one denomination which would also obscure the truth.

---

WS: The churches accepted the results without complaint, good or bad towards them. Facts are facts. We needed to know what is going on. The questions were generic, understanding some people might interpret them through their own doctrinal understanding, giving interesting takes on a question like "Do you believe there is a God that intervenes in the affairs of todays' societies?"

quote:

---

quote:

---

Several secular pollsers have tackled the evolution/creation issue because it stimulates interest and business. The ones most trusted in America have consistently reported similar results, that America remains about equally divided over the issue, with a slight increase in desire for teaching both subjects.

---

​

Could you please list those polls? I would be interested in reading them and their methodology...also the state by state breakdowns, education level differences etc...just out of curiosity.

---

WS: Gallup, Zogby and Harris are good ones, but there are many more. Do a search on it yourself. Mot are run by political activists and newspapers which decidedly favor one political party. It's best to stick with those that don't take official sides in anything.
Here's an interesting article: ARIANNA ONLINE - Arianna Huffington

quote:

---

quote:

---

WS It appears to me they don't particularly want students learning one over another, but do think its time the student is prepared to discuss the issue intelligently, not blindsided by some one knowledgeable in both sides. Most Americans who think they believe in either one couldn't give two or three accurate reasons why, except to appeal to some authoritative source, such as "our old textbooks wouldn't be wrong, would they", or "I believe whatever the Bible says about it, whatever that is, I forgot".

---

​

I don't know anyone in paleontology or molecular biology who when asked to support evolution relies on a statement like "textbooks cannot be wrong". In fact due to budget constraints many science classrooms use incredibly outdated textbooks which are full of errors in all branches of science.

---

WS: I am talking about the average person who got a high school education who doesn't work in the sciences. Of course a professional like you list would have a strronger basis for belief in science theories.

quote:

---

It's just something they quiclkly forget if they don't entertain it often in their post education years.

​

I for one will not be past my post education years until I die

---

WS: Americans in general couldn't give a hoot over science, aiming only at landing a good paying job or one they enjoy doing. Few of those involve science, so the subject becomes more remote with time away from the classroom years.

quote:

---

quote:

---

WS I have read many articles about this problem, both from evolutionist sites, and creationist sites, deploring the lack of science knowledge among Americans.

---

​

You won't get any argument from me on the subject of lack of science education in America (and in many countries for that matter). Germans are better in terms of scientific education for example but better does not mean great either.

---

WS: The education is offered grandly, but it just doesn't stick unless you exercise the knowledge daily. Same goes for math. Kids learn math, but when they get behind the checkout stand register, they can't make change without a computer telling them the sum owed, and they really are at a loss if you supply 2 cents to avoid getting more pennies. To save a lot of confusion, it's best to let them give you excess pennies to avoid that glare of confusion. [Fixed poor quoting technique. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
However, if you have not personally analyzed the questions asked, the distribution of the populations to which the questions were asked, and the raw data, you cannot really know if the polls that you believe in are credible.

---

WS: How many facts can anyone really believe without some element of faith in what other people offer? Practically nothing, since even our own eyes can deceive us. Much of what I was certain of as a youth turned out false. It's necessary to discover how to sort data accurately and quickly to get along in life with least interruption. Mathematicians derived the science of statistics, which is applied to numerical data, makign it possible to clean up data sets and supply a measure of confidence in what is observed and measured. But one must also apply some faith that the analysis is done properly. Statisticians are employed both by pollsters who are determined to assure high confidence in their service, and by watch groups, as well as some organizaions (the clients) who wish to double-check the data obtained considering they are paying royally for such service. he credibility of everyone involved in a poll is on the line. Once they begin using sloppy methods and draw attention of critics, they are found out and from then on dismissed as fringe or worse. Some corporate court cases are won or lost on the partial basis of sound statistical analysis of facts. Its a business that depends on accuracy and reliability. The money follows the good ones.

quote:

---

There is no criteria by which to measure. If the polls change,even radically, the polling organization (say one that is biased) can say that it was just the results they got that day..as statistical anomaly. You would have to provide evidence of an organization losing its accreditation for "messing up".

---

WS: I would estimate that the staticians on board would advise not announcing possible anomalies, which hardly contribute to trends. It is the client that might misuse the anomalous data, accepting the fringe as trend. There are no rules concerning how the client uss the results of the pollster except that a civil lawsuit could arise over misrepresentation of the pollster, so part of the credibility lies in the release of identity of the pollster, and the data, for analysis by critics. For a fee anyone can go view the data if the pollster is upright and open, unless the organization releases it freely. If there are elements of data that could damage the client's agenda they could just publish an article stating their own interpretation, ignoring the truth. It would be difficult for people to discern the truth, most accepting the statements of organizations they trust. That is why I don't trust any statement unless the pollster is identified. That way I can go to the pollster site and consider their own interpretation of the data. I no longer subscribe to their service for access to the data, finding they never got too far away from unbiased analysis, but relying on their free summaries. We subscribed (paid for by our party, for use by members of the volunteer staff) during the last presidential race to get the truth about what people were thinking. The problem boils down to what the client has to say about the issue and how they got their data.

quote:

---

...When I see a poll that says 70% of Americans support this or that I think it is heavily dependent on how the question is phrased. And the whole point of my posting the poll results I found was to indicate that you can find polls that support whatever you want and that using google is hardly a way to research a subject.

---

WS: If several polls using different questions independently are found in the average around that 70%, then statistically that is the truth. You can't fool the numbers, the reason other oganizations are willing to finance a competitive poll to make sure opponents are not influencing the public. Then if one comes up way different from the others, that one is suspect, stimulating even more polls. There is also the reality of an organization offering a completely bogus report based on no poll at all, just claiming "a poll" backs them up. No pollster name, no poll, just propaganda. I often take an excerpt of supposed news articles and run searches for their existence in places other than a cited website. All too often the articles turn out bogus, being originated by a crafty webmaster. I could supply this forum a completely ficticious "official" AP news release that lots of people would assume true, not bothering to check it out.

quote:

---

Every major magazine and newspaper dedicates significant space to American political issues. None of this is true in the US.

---

WS: We have those too, but little about Europe.

quote:

---

What is your criteria for distinguishing biased versus unbiased polling and please be specific.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

WS: Randomness of the sample, size of sample, and lisings of the questions asked in the sample, mainly. I also consider the client.

---

​

Do you actually check ALL of these points for all polls?

---

WS: Not any longer. Have you examined the policy statements of pollsters? Here's one that might help answer your questions and build a little confidence. Page Not Found

quote:

---

If it is an ABC TV interactive poll, I doubt it if the program caters to political liberal viewers (which is the norm for ABC), where relatively few conservatives would be aware of the poll. Naturally, the poll would reflect the liberal viewpoint. There are almost no conservative-led interactive polls in the news orgs, found mostly in paid programming.

---

Hmmm I have heard some people claim that all American media is either liberal biased or conservative biased i.e. CNN was called either the Clinton news network or the christian news network....I think ALL tv reporting in the US is crap because it is done in soundbites with no depth with overly simplistic explanations.WS: I agree except that CNN is decidely biased against Christianity, being a Turner company. They did support Clinton and his party, reporting many hours a day in the favor of the Democrats compared to minutes or mere seconds a day concerning Republican news. Fox is the most reliable at least in giving equal time.

quote:

---

that they accepted without complaint is not evidence of truth. And facts are not facts in this context. How many christian denominations would you expect to answer negatively to your example question by the way?

---

WS: They had to accept it or be found out by opponent groups looking for anything they can find to discredit churches. The numbers are undeniable. Barna (the pollster employed) wouldn't be part of such falsification. Part of the contract for the service includes some legal stuff that prevents their being used falsely.Evidently the responders were quite honest in their answers. If they were to lie they would surely have reported they pray and read their Bible daily, but the report revealed only a tiny fraction do that, which fits what we know locally.Wish to learn what Christians are saying now? http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/MainArchives.asp

quote:

---

However, you seem to think it is ok for the average person who got a high school education to dictate what is taught as science in the classroom in direct opposition to science and the scientific method.

---

WS: There is safety in numbers in many ways. Parents have a right to say what they want their children to learn, that they will be prepare to deal with life. I don't know of any effort to replace actual science with non-science. Christians are willing to set before their children both creation science and the science/scientific method side by side, allowing them to make up their own minds. There is risk they will adopt evolution and even atheism, but risk is necessary. It isn't reasonable to force people to study only a perspective that is accepted by others not willing to consider some viewpoints. Such an education is unbalanced. Are evolutionists afraid many will accept creation if the knowledge is presented in classrooms? If so, then what could be so weak about evolution that the risk of losing adherents is real? If there is no risk, then why not compare the perspectives regularly, that students can grow up equipped to deal with the debate effectively? I find that hardly anyone educated since 1970 here has a clue about science, sciene method, or evolution in particular, though educated by liberals and evolutionists who control the educational arena, using textbooks that promote those ideologies. The students emerge almost de-educated, often not able to fill out an employment application without assistance, unable to locate Iraq on a globe.

quote:

---

But for some reason when it comes to biology and especially evolution those same people suddenly feel they are experts on the subject when in fact they have no clue what the theory states or what the science is that supports it. It is opposition for oppostions sake rather than a rational response....I don't go to American Chemical Society meetings and protest the fall of the Bohr model because I think it somehow conflicts with my worldview.

---

WS: A tiny fraction of Americans enter the internet forums attempting to handle the topic. In day to day real life it just isn't present. The debate largely is confined to the internet and academia.[Removed an extra quote. This is much better, though. Thanks! --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-21-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: There is safety in numbers in many ways.

---

And ignorance. If your child was hit by a car would you poll your buddies for the best solution, or would you take that child to the hospital?This is special pleading.WS: I doubt that. Consider this from Page not found - Nizkor"Description of Special PleadingSpecial Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S.
The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment."WS: I think the saying is one that is proven useful. Any nation reconsiders attacking another if they believe they are outnumbered significantly. Populations interact more efficiently, providing greater national security when their numbers are great, such as in China. No neighbor of China would consider a military action against them on land. In the world of statistics, expert mathematicians can dismantle almost any concept given enough data, forcing providers of data to do so in a statistically sound way. Most empirical data is consistent around basic physical laws and properties of matter, testable through statistics, at least in determining such measures as standard deviation. That is a statistical measure of the departure a quantity is likely (within a limited probability) to be found from its average value, plus or minus. It is the likely range of values around an average. That range is testable by observation to determine what "normal" is, as in analyzing finances. It's used to determine how wild risk or investment volatility is expected to swing from average high to average low around a long term average value. I look at that quite closely in playing the stock market, keeping me away from the more volatile markets that went sour. I like markets with narrow ranges of departure from average, with small steady gains. Statistics makes that possible, and kept my investments solid. I buy small stocks that make fifty cents at a time twice or three times a year. When a cheap stock moves from $3.50 to $4, I sell, keep the profit, reinvesting it when the low hits, then wait for another half or whole dollar that can be made. There IS safety in numbers, and prosperity.

quote:

---

Parents have a right to say what they want their children to learn, that they will be prepare to deal with life.

---

Right. And parents can teach their kids anything they like-- at home. School is not religion class.WS: Ah, but you know what? My kids went to college and dealt academic death blows to students that had no idea what creation science involved. They were totally unprepared for their perspective. I'd say those students were less than educated, while mine came away far more knowledgeable about the evolution perspective, better able to handle it with confidence.I don't think you have this in focus. "Creation science" can be presented without a single mention of anything religious, leaving the connection to God a natural deduction once the concept is understood. Since evolutionists resist the issue of origin of life, prefering to concentrate on the development of life forms after the initial incidence of life on earth, creationists can accomodate that without having to resort to anything the Bible says about where life came from. Both sides can avoid the origin question. Therefore, it appears to me that maybe the term itself ("creation science") is improper in that it suggests the concept is entirely concerning the Genesis account of origin of species. I don't have a better substitute.

quote:

---

Christians are willing to set before their children both creation science and the science/scientific method side by side, allowing them to make up their own minds. There is risk they will adopt evolution and even atheism, but risk is necessary.

---

Wow, very noble..... but.....This is a very biased gamble. By putting creationism in science class you actually give it an edge on evolution, not make it equal. If these kids have been taught the myth since birth at home and in church, putting it in school only reinforces the it. It does not lead to careful and reasoned analysis.WS: But the numbers indicate the split is about even, having students equally indoctrinated at home to believe evolution. If they are not so prepared, then why would parents who believe it not make sure their children have a grasp of it? It seems to me that if Christians wish to prepare their children with creation belief, that is a risk evolutionists must face, and should if they have confidence in their belief. I think it would require teachers presenting evolution to be better teachers, better prepared to meet the Christian challenge, in order to overcome that bias at home. But it appears now that isn't working, in that many teachers are realizing the validity of many creationist objections to evolution. In several states both perspectives are offered, even social science classes with the Bible as the only textbook, in PUBLIC schools mind you, with the OK from the highest court.From http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=40 consider this:The courts have always ruled that states cannot "require" the teaching of creation. The teachers have had the right to teach it. Even enemies of creation understand this."no statue exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before, and it can be taught now." Stephen Jay Gould, The Verdict on Creationism, New York Times, July 19, 1987, p. 34

quote:

---

Of course, why not teach all of the many and sundry varieties of creation myth as well. You could spend three or four years going over them, then your kids would be well prepared for life in the real world.

---

WS: You seem awfully biased, unable to prove the Bible or creation is myth. Regardless your opinion, things are changing, and I think a lot of that has to do with the sudden allowance of Islamic teachings that alerted Christians as to the legality of school board decisions to PERMIT teaching of creation science. If it is legal for Islamic studies, it must also be for the Bible to be brought back in. When the ACLU failed to object to Islamic encroachment, many people realized what was happening, that we had been duped many years. Many public schools have some Christian science teachers (I was one for 17 years) who are gladly taking up the challenge. It is only a matter of a decade or so that evolution will pass away, too difficult for the average citizen to retain accurately anyway.

quote:

---

I find that hardly anyone educated since 1970 here has a clue about science, sciene method, or evolution in particular, though educated by liberals and evolutionists who control the educational arena, using textbooks that promote those ideologies. The students emerge almost de-educated, often not able to fill out an employment application without assistance, unable to locate Iraq on a globe.

---

This is funny-- the fundie creationist complaining about de-education! LOLWS: Maybe funny, but true. I have a neighbor that is the chief librarian at a neighboring county library. When she began her career there in 1975, the local youth made it difficult for older adults to take part, lacking study space. Young people read books, magazines, whatever new came along. Now the new library is modern, with computers and internet, video rooms, museum type displays of local culture, sponsored summer field trips such as a hike trip studying edible wild plants, and a geology tour, lots of neat things. She says maybe 30 young people use the library regularly, while about a hundred retired adults almost live there, learning the internet and improving their knowledge level. Most young people come unable to look up a book in the card catalog or online, and many just can't learn how no matter how many times they are shown. Most of the 30 who do show up regularly do so to use the internet, but since there is a 20 minute limit and a waiting line, they are declining, especially since a filter system was installed. There are five computers reserved for students with assignments signed by teachers, but those remain unused most of the time. Chat and online gaming is the major use for kids, while adults are researching a wide range of topics. I would like to see a professional study of that nationwide.The most balanced library users among youth are home-schooled. Parents taught their children how to use it. Those kids are populating universities and doing very well, well balanced and handling life. I know that from pesonal knowledge; from government reports; from internet data from places like CAPE | Private School Facts for private school information; Homeschool World - "The World's Most Visited Homeschool Site" for homeshcool information and links.How much emphasis on evolution would you suspect? Not much. Why would they if the parents don't want it? urns out their children become successful without a keen knowledge of the entirity of evolution. How many careers depend on such knowledge? Why not study a perspective that helps them gain a great appreciation for who they were created to be? Well, they do, and they are fine citizens making things work out there like the great people before them that made America great, people who had almost no knowledge of evolution, and still don't. So cry all you want, but forget turning the tide. It's over your ankles already and the crest is a way off.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Again, what's with the math. Friday sundown to Saturday sundown == 1 day. Saturday sundown to Sunday sundown == 2 days. JESUS ROSE ON MONDAY!!! You guys have had it wrong all along.WS: Burial was Wednesday about sunset, the same time Thursday began. Jesus remained in the grave three days and nights, coming out Sunday. That particular Wednesday sunset to Thusday sunset was the special "High Sabbath", not the weekly sabbath Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Being crucified on a Wednesday, burial at sunset put him in the grave at the beginning of Thursday, not hanging on the cross illegally over any part of the High Sabbath. So it was that he was in the grave Thursday-Saturday, three days and nights as prophesied, arising Sunday early morning. Wednesday was over with come sundown, Thursday beginning at sundown, whereas our day changes at midnight. The Jews had the tomb guarded to make sure Jesus didn't come out on the weekly sabbath, compounding their initial error grievously in their minds. (Mt. 27)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
But there are those peskie ten commandments.

quote:

---

According to Paul there is no holy day or holy month in God's eyes.

​

Col. 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

---

Well, what da ya know. I stand corrected. It is in there.But what about Mat. 5:17-18?Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tiddle shall in no wise pass form the law, till all be finished.WS: The prophets said the old contract God made with the Hebrews would be ended and replaced with an entirely new one. That didn't mean the old would no longer exist, as in vanished, because those words are always there. But the very contract promised to come came, in Christ, who fulfilled the prophets. It's described in the NT like pitching an old jacket into the chest never to be worn again, wearing instead a new jacket. The old is still there, but discarded. All was finished on the cross when Jesus cried out "It is finished".Have you not been arguing that some laws HAVE passed-- ie. no longer required? Does the Bible itself not argue such?Lets go to verse 19:Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kindom of heaven.....WS: All had not been fulfilled yet. Jesus himself was subject to the old covenant until all was finished on the cross.As per some of your previous statements, Jesus broke these laws, the apostles broke these laws and taught others to do likewise.WS: The only "laws" Jesus btroke were the ones the Pharisees added.Are you paying attention?

quote:

---

It is simply custom, not by commandment, we worship on any one day.

---

You are not paying attention. IT IS BY COMMANDMENT.[/B][/QUOTE]WS: It was while Jesus was alive, but that commandment was voided since Jesus IS the promised Sabbath rest.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: The prophets said the old contract God made with the Hebrews would be ended and replaced with an entirely new one. That didn't mean the old would no longer exist, as in vanished, because those words are always there. But the very contract promised to come came, in Christ, who fulfilled the prophets. It's described in the NT like pitching an old jacket into the chest never to be worn again, wearing instead a new jacket. The old is still there, but discarded. All was finished on the cross when Jesus cried out "It is finished".

---

WOW.... now that is sophistry!!!!! Don't you get it? You've made the entire old testament fluid and pliable, and much of the NT as well. You are now free to pick and choose whatever you want. This is the problem.WS: By sophistry I suppose you mean literally subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation? What I wrote is what the Bible reports. God made it clear to the subjects of the OT that if they didn't repent and obey Him, they would be allowed to utterly fail in the old system of law-based religion. However, He made it clear another covenant was on the way anyway. The time came when God divorced the Jews, allowed Israel and Judah to fall into captivity, the temple destroyed, but saving a remnant for the new covenant restoration. Reading from our perspective we know how it all ended, realizing what they had was a shadow of what came to replace it. The terms of their contract with God were for them, yet are valuable for Christians, having revealed much of the nature of God. Our new covenant, the gospel of Christ, was not an improved old covenant, but was entirely new based on the nature of God, not upon the law and ceremonial commandments. Those things acted as a schoolmaster bringing people to the point they could understand the new. It was necessary to demonstrate the world concept of pleasing God through mere religion is impossible. It all showed the need for a personal relationship instead, more like that between God and Abraham 400 years before the law was given. The law was added because of too many transgressions. What was added is what was replaced.

quote:

---

WS: The only "laws" Jesus broke were the ones the Pharisees added.

---

Now this is interesting, perhaps a new topic.WS: You might learn something. Somehow you need to find out what the Bible message is, for so far you have demonstrated quite a lot of ignorance of it. My guess is you have no idea what part the Pharisee sect had on facilitating the need to end the old covenant, having perverted it beyond possibility of recovery. They were the lawyers of that day, having assumed the role of enforcers of the religion, which had been so altered as to make the whole thing a great burden.
In order to discuss the topic you will need to first understand what God commanded, then compare that to what the Jewish community leaders were teaching and enforcing. It's a two semester course in most Bible colleges, and that only introduces the topic.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]Thanks for the definition of special pleading, but how is what you are doing NOT special pleading?You are claiming that in the case of creation it is ok to appeal to public opinion, yet you would not appeal to such in cases such as the one I cited. This is pleading special status for the creation issue.[/quote]WS: If you are referring to your strawman argument (".. If your child was hit by a car would you poll your buddies for the best solution, or would you take that child to the hospital?"), then you are appearing desperate to wiggle out of the topic.

quote:

---

One could also consider this an appeal to pulbic opinion-- argumentum ad populum, if you prefer-- which is a version of an appeal to authority.

---

WS: Since evolutionists often claim most people believe in evolution, it must be assumed they too rely on polls, for there is no other valid way to estimate those beliefs. If so, they too are doing what you accuse me of. But, I am not putting the public up as an unqualified authority then appealing to their opinion. All I'm doing is establishing the fallacy of evolutionist claims, while pointing out the trend toward a rise in belief creation science is valid enough to be taught in public schools. Listening to you one would have to conclude polls are useless since the results include input from non professionals. I think you take such argument much too far, requiring only reliance on actual empirical data. In doing that, I think you selected a poll that went out of the way to misrepresent what is really going on. Your appeal to authority was one that is deliberately false, not even matching government reports which tend to bury trends until they can no longer be ignored. The USDE is admitting the trend my polls advance, and those reports are based on monthly reports collected from schools.Furthermore, if the public polls reveal creation science is on the upswing, that isn't making the case creation science is true or untrue, or evolution for that matter, but that it is being accepted as possibly true enough to be thought suitable to be taught alongside evolution.

quote:

---

You see, usually, a faulty argument can qualify for several different informal logical fallacies.

---

WS: I think you do a spendid job demonstrating that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: I think the saying is one that is proven useful. Any nation reconsiders attacking another if they believe they are outnumbered significantly.

---

quote:

---

Ah.... this would be the fallacy of faulty analogy. I believe I could also argue that it is misdirection, or the fallacy of the red-herring.

---

WS: Nope. It was an EXAMPLE of how people can benefit from the numerical analysis of situations, helping them avoid calamity. In that case, simple sums frequently prohibit possibility of war, if one tribe of 150 were to desire revenge against a tribe of 1,000. Better armed or not, the odds of success would be remote.

quote:

---

You see, while greater numbers can in fact be an advantage in physical conflict, it does not follow that it is advantageous in matters of what is and is not factual. Consider all of the patently false things that have at one time or another been considered true by the vaste majority of people. Did this belief make these things true? Did this belief make the Earth flat? Or make the stars crystals of ice on the firmament?

---

WS: Your appeal to a few pet anomalies doesn't support your premise. For instance, the vast majority of Americans believe their liberty is precious and worth expenditure of vast sums of revenue to protect. Who can prove that liberty is the best lifestyle or not? It doesn't matter, for most believe it enough to offer up their sons to preserve. For all practical purposes that makes the ideal true. Forget what philosophers have to say about it, for none will change their minds.
As for your examples, none of those beliefs affected real life except maybe to cause mariners to be extra vigilant when possibly approaching the edge of the world. They never did fall off the cliff, so what they believed was suitable, was truth as far as they were concerned, because what they believed fit what they saw or thought. It didn't matter that they didn't have it technically correct. They had explanations that satisfied, releasing them to think about other mysteries.The fact is that people here are beginning to reconsider the validity of creation, whether it is proven true or not, believing the case for evolution is not settled enough to eliminate another perspective.

quote:

---

Most empirical data is consistent around basic physical laws and properties of matter, testable through statistics, at least in determining such measures as standard deviation.

---

quote:

---

Which empirical data and physical laws you accept? Just checking.

---

WS: Science textbooks report those things. I adhere to all the science laws, some of the theories and hypotheses, including those that make a case against evolution, such as entropy of matter and energy. I believe the creation is winding down, not up. That happens to fit the statements in Revelation that God will roll it all up like a scroll and begin a new creation. It took thousands of years for scientists to arrive at that belief through observation of empirical data.

quote:

---

As to the statistics lesson and the stock market: It is a repeat of the same fallacy as above, unless you are taking the position that truth is relative.

---

WS: The same rules apply to you, making your argument fallacy. All I was doing was giving an example of the value of satatistics towards making decisions that work most of the time, clearly defining the boundary of excessive risk. You seemed to be totally negating the use of mathematics in evaluating empirical data. If so, then you might as well abandon science, for most science utilizes math, specifically statistics, to validate their measurements.

quote:

---

They were totally unprepared for their perspective.

---

quote:

---

This is a sad statement about US schools systems, but to argue that we introduce psuedo-science to fix the problem is ridiculous.

---

WS: It has become painfully clear to parents that what replaced what was considered proper education years ago has failed to educate. Evolutionists claim often their own have done a fine job, being in control of education, with academia overwhelmingly pro-evolution.
The notion creation science is "pseudo-science" is no longer valid since people BELIEVE it is valid science. Saying it is not has not changed their minds, has it? What I have seen lately is a total rejection of any science opinion purely on the basis of its origination from a creation scientist, not upon its merits. That was a fatal tactic that turns most people off, who can recognize disingenuous philosophy- the sophistry of academia. Rather than seriously consider the opinions of creationists, most evolutionists simply dismiss them with vain philosophy. That alone alerts thinking people as to why that happens, suggesting evolutionists fear the possibility creation scientists might just be right.

quote:

---

"Creation science" can be presented without a single mention of anything religious

---

quote:

---

Sorry, but no it can't. I challenge you to do so.

---

WS: A local highschool has distributed "Icons of Evolution" which is supplimental reading for HS biology. The ten questions are considered. The NCSE (Nat. Ctr Science Ed) response is also considered, which dodges the real issues, such as the "Cambrian explosion". Now the public schools are taking it up. A for instance of that is being noticed, which strengthens belief in creation without even mentionisg creation, it the NCSE reply that avoids Well's note the evolutionists can't explain how so many forms of life suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian, with no buildup as claimed about subsequent strata, the fossil record above Cambrian. NCSE distorts Well's point by making it appear Wells was claiming ALL groups of lifeforms are found in the Cambrian. The "All major animal groups" statement was presented as meaning those recorded in the Cambrian, but the same principle of fully formed organisms being in the fossil record holds true throughout the geologic time scale, too. No examples of partially formed organisms have been found, with all examples being fully functional. For that matter, no fossil would record all the facts about organs or tissues, requiring inference and hypotheses to explain what might have been inside a fossil. Too few fossils have been unearthed to clearly establish a complete transition of for instance dinosaur to bird. Some highly suggestive fossils are here, yes, but there is a cloud of guesswork around them. The net result of such manipulation of imaginations and distortions of comments by opponents of evolution only serves to convince people there is obviously a great cover-up about this subject, causing great interest in exploring creation science.

quote:

---

Since evolutionists resist the issue of origin of life, prefering to concentrate on the development of life forms after the initial incidence of life on earth, creationists can accomodate that without having to resort to anything the Bible says about where life came from.

---

quote:

---

Isn't this just sweeping things under the rug? Sad way to go about educating ourselves.

---

WS: Creationists have been trying to get evolutionists to tackle the issue of origin of life, but they insist on just picking up on only what became of the initial life form(s). They might cite the 1953 Miller experiment then drop it, complaining about how the Big Bang has anything to do with biological evolution anyway. Now evolutionists are trying to distance themselves from the astrophysical side of the issue. It's obvious there is some change in the evolutionist camps, mostly a narrowing of the subject in several CE forums, while creationsists seem to be wanting to take all the associated issues together.

quote:

---

Both sides can avoid the origin question.

---

quote:

---

I don't want to avoid the issue. It happens to be important. But I have a question. You seem to be making the case that God created everything and then evolution took over. Now, avoiding the inherent difficulties of that position, you then wish to avoid the creation, or origin issue. Sounds like you essentially have evolution being taught in school. Something isn't making sense.

---

WS: You appear to be missing key points. You offered a case that creation science is both pseudo-science and religion. I find there are textbooks that deal with that without mention of the Bible. There are contributors to modern textbooks that are challenging the notion of evolutionary development of species without mention of religion, taking the position of stasis subject to deterioration through extinction and reduced gene pool information. Several school boards are now demanding and finding textbooks that address the objections of creation scientists without reference to religion, since that reference is unnecessary. A search on the web turns up MANY books that do that which could easily be introduced as textbooks, and apparently are throughout the "Bible Belt" states which give a very slight treatment of evolution in public schools.

quote:

---

It seems to me that if Christians wish to prepare their children with creation belief, that is a risk evolutionists must face, and should if they have confidence in their belief.

---

quote:

---

But not in science class. It is not science, but religion.

---

WS: I'm not finding any reference to textbooks that bring in the Genesis account. Where does that happen? Provide proof, please. I just can't find evidence of it. What is called "Creation science" in classrooms is moatly anti-evolution, claiming stasis of all organisms throughout however long they have been here, admitting extinctions, etc. Where are teachers making the case with the Bible? Have you not read some of the creation science webpages reporting opinions of 'creation' scientists whose articles are not based on the Bible, but upon science methods as valid as what is used by evolutionists? There are more contributors lately that won't take a religious side at all, but do support anti-evolution. [quote][b]If it is legal for Islamic studies, it must also be for the Bible to be brought back in.[/quote][/b]

quote:

---

And there you have it.... Islamic studies, not science class. I happen to believe that US schools should be able to get 10 times the information on the table that they actually do, and a good broad survey of religion and culture would be a great part of that. But not in science class, unless creationism can come up with some real science.

---

WS: That is my point. There are some compelling arguments out there that cast a dark shadow on evolution, coming from respected scientists. When they step out in that, evolutionists write them off as having grown senile. More denial and unwillingness to consider all perspectives serves oly to dampen the evolutionist claims.[/b]-----
Edit by Adminnemooseus - I cleaned up the UBB quoting formating as best I could. It is a challenge, since it's useful to look at 1)The original quoted message; 2)The message I'm trying to fix; and 3)The message I'm trying to fix, in the edit window. All these require scrolling up and down, to see the entire thing.The problems I saw were {"(" and ")" used in place of the "[" and "]" in this discussion, to prevent it becoming UBB code itself}:
1)No "/" in the end of quote function (/quote) - This results in the display of nested quotes, that were not intended to be nested.
2)No UBB quote code at all, for a section.I may not have gotten it completely right, but it should be close.My suggestion is, use the "quote reply" only for short quoted messages. For smaller individual quotes, copy and paste, being careful to have the "(quote)" at the begining and the "(/quote)" at the end.I would also suggest that you try to cut down on the amount of bold text you use.Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-22-2002]

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: Burial was Wednesday about sunset, the same time Thursday began.

quote:

---

Maybe you should read this:

​

Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

---

WS: I'm working on the format, not realizing someone was fixing the posts. Sorry for the troubles.I had aleady read that site and found their Wednesday crucifixion scenario to match up with other sources. Jesus could certainly have not been buried until Wednesday sunset, and he could have resurrected at sunset Saturday, the end of the sabbath, being available Sunday morning for Mary to encounter, leaving no partial night to deal with. Like the Blue Letter site says, it isn't stated, but there is no room for critics to say the days and nights don't add up. The tradition of accepting Friday as the crucifixion day is not a reflection of what the Bible reports, the error being in the chosen day if there is error, not in the Bible.Notice they leave out the fact that Joseph asked for and obtained the body of Jesus late afternoon towards evening or after dark, being Thursday night anytime after sunset. Joseph first asked at even, then Pilate had the body delivered. That had to take some time. He was evidently buried Thursday night, not Wednesday afternoon. I get that from the Greek for "even" in Mt. 27:57, from Gr. opsios; late; feminine (as noun) afternoon (early eve) or nightfall (later eve) :- even (-ing, [-tide]).Another point not considered was that Joseph had rolled a stone across the tomb that evening, leaving the two Marys on 'guard', part of their proper grieving. The next day the Jews got Pilate to set a Roman guard there which sealed the stone, so Mary's subsequent visits would have been prevented, unable to get past the stone. Besides, the burial was hasty and it wasn't reasonable for Mary to have the oils on hand for anointing the body so soon, and there was the problem of the next day being an automatic sabbath following the Passover. She might have obtained the oils quickly, but couldn't have used them until finding the guard gone. So the normal non sabbath day of Friday would not have been useful for her, being also prohibited from travelling or working on both Thursday and Saturday, leaving only Sunday as the first possible day she could maybe gain entrance, knowing eventually the guard would leave. Had she not been able to gain entrance by then the law would have prevented her touching the corruption of the 4th day. Jesus avoided that, saving Mary the daunting task of dealing with a body that would soon stink. Upon her arrival she found Jesus already out of the grave.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: If you are referring to your strawman argument (".. If your child was hit by a car would you poll your buddies for the best solution, or would you take that child to the hospital?"), then you are appearing desperate to wiggle out of the topic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Not a strawman. A strawman would be a misrepresentation of your position. I posited an analogous position. It is valid.WS: Certainly a strawman. The analogy was rediculous. Since nobody would consider polling a crowd or any other group to decide whether to take an injured child to a hospital, the scenario doesn't fit as an example. There are, however, valid reasons for people to poll opinions, but not for life or death decisions like that. By using that scenario you misrepresent my case as badly as can be.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Since evolutionists often claim most people believe in evolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------I don't care. What most people believe often has little to do with what is supportable.WS: But you do care, since your team brought in a doubtful poll (Mammuthus' lead) to counter the ones I quoted. You are making a case here in this post for us to accept from you that significant numbers of people who believe in evolution has little to do with what is supportable. That fits my belief, that many people say they believe in it, but probably couldn't explain why. (often) their belief is unsupportable.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Listening to you one would have to conclude polls are useless since the results include input from non professionals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I don't have much confidence in polls for that very reason. Polls can only give a vague idea of public opinion. But public opinion has little to do with what can be substantiated. As for statistical validity, in a country of 250+ million, a few thousand or even hundred thousand replies is statistically very unstable. You've covered many of the problems with surveys so I don't think I need to elaborate.WS: Statisticians have proven your assumption wrong about samples. As long as the samples are random, a few thousand do represent the 250 millions. Political races are based on polls, and the predictions were very close to reality in the last presidential race.
If the result is a "vague idea", the fault would be from vague questions getting vague answers. If the polls were so unstable there would not be a market for that industry. Many people have a well placed trust in the polls, especially marketing agents.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: In doing that, I think you selected a poll that went out of the way to misrepresent what is really going on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I selected a poll?WS: Your team-mate Mammuthus cited in #75 a poll result from pfaw.org, whose assertions are incorrect. It appears to me you two are working together and in agreement. If so, you are misrepresenting by association.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your appeal to authority was one that is deliberately false
----------------------------------------------------------------------I appealed to authority? To which authority was that?WS: I am not addressing individuals here, but the group that is opposite my platform. Ever been on a debate team? It is team against team, with mine a team of one, apparently. Or, are we not debating here? What do you call this exercise?quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter, for most believe it enough to offer up their sons to preserve. For all practical purposes that makes the ideal true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You are confusing cultural ideals with science. This is misdirection.WS: Wouldn't you be already guilty of that, confusing first aid for an injured child with use of a pollster to find out how many people believe creation science should be taught alongside evolution?quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that people here are beginning to reconsider the validity of creation, whether it is proven true or not, believing the case for evolution is not settled enough to eliminate another perspective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Argumentum ad populum. Try asking the scientists who study the phenomenon.WS: What the scientists have to say about it is remote from what the public wants to believe. The polls demonstrate there is a gulf of incredulity between them. You see, I already know and could predict what those scientists say. It takes a poll to determine what the public is thinking.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Evolutionists claim often their own have done a fine job, being in control of education, with academia overwhelmingly pro-evolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Evolutionists are not in control of education. Education is controlled by politicians ultimately, and they mostly profess Christianity.WS: Almost all public school and college textbooks in the sciences are overwhelmingly written by multiple contributing authors from the evolutionist pool, with probably not one article from a known creationist, until very recently.An example of what I'm referring to is this from the Nat. Assoc of Biology Teachers, Not Found"Courts have thus restricted school districts from requiring creation science in the science curriculum and have restricted individual instructors from teaching it. All teachers and administrators should be mindful of these court cases, remembering that the law, science and NABT support them as they appropriately include the teaching of evolution in the science curriculum."That and virtually all the other major associations that influence public school teachers are undeniably pro-evolution, anti creation-science. School administrators also heel to national associations that do the same, while some maybe do profess Christianity. The politicians mostly get the funding for education.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now evolutionists are trying to distance themselves from the astrophysical side of the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Creationism covers the origins of life and of the universe itself. You seem to have this idea that evolution is the same. It isn't. Wanna talk astrophysics, talk to an astrophysicists.WS: The Big Bang and Cosmology topic next door is typical of many other forums where evolutionists argue evolution is supported astrophysically.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are contributors to modern textbooks that are challenging the notion of evolutionary development of species without mention of religion, taking the position of stasis subject to deterioration through extinction and reduced gene pool information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------The implication being creation. Sneaky but still religious.WS: I heard our state has allowed some school districts to use some new textbooks on that theme. I need to visit around and try to get a title. There is a political action group in Arkansas that has been pushing for a supply of suitable textbooks that could be inserted into the curriculum, bypassing the earlier attempt to legislate for required balanced treatment. It has cleared the courts, is now a matter of money, so they send out requests for support from time to time. I've seen their newsletters in the teacher's lounge over the years.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: I'm not finding any reference to textbooks that bring in the Genesis account. Where does that happen? Provide proof, please.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I never said that the Genesis account appears in textbooks. What I have been saying is that creationism is a religious explaination, not a scientific one.Science is an attempt to explain the world using observable data and reason. Creationism is an attempt to justify a religious conception of the origins of the world.WS: Are you trying to state there is no "creation science" entity that is addressing science matters without reference to the Bible? I believe that is incorrect, and will search for some websites that report there are some "creation" science orgs that don't rely on the Bible, I think because that causes them problems. I know I've visited some websites that have many technical articles and not a hint of religion. If it were true that all or even most "creation science" orgs ignore science data and actual observation, relying on the Bible alone, they would have dried up many years ago, and there would be no debate. Seems to me the Dr. Dino site is close to what I'm taking about. I can't remember the names, but there is a guy that has a complete book on the creation science subject without a mention of the Bible or religion at all. It'll take a little time to search.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you not read some of the creation science webpages reporting opinions of 'creation' scientists whose articles are not based on the Bible, but upon science methods as valid as what is used by evolutionists?
----------------------------------------------------------------------I have seen many claims. And never have I seen good science.WS: So am I to assume you are a scientist qualified to judge the works put out by those "creation" scientists? Or do you go by what the websites say about them? Is your opinion first or second hand?quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS:There are some compelling arguments out there that cast a dark shadow on evolution, coming from respected scientists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Support this.WS: I'm trying to visit and do some catching up reading in the neighboring topics, where some people are bringing that up quite well. The support is already available there. I've been slowed down checking out the many URLs they provide. There are MANY sound arguments 'out there', and I don't believe you are ignorant of them.I don't plan on getting too deep into the science side of this, even though I taught it from 1982-1999. My current primary interest is in Bible apologetics, countering claims the Bible is faulty in an apparent effort to discredit creation science at its supposed root. If these topics dry up, as I think "A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible" must due to the sponsor's refusal to meet my very fair challenge, I'll find time to dip into the science matters. I know what the evolution story is about, being formerly required to teach it, needing to catch up on what has been added/changed in the past 4 years. If I were to return to teaching it would be in a private school anyway, requiring considerable study of creation science, so I am at a crossroad with this. But for now I am enjoying a good living and peace of mind, neither possible for teachers in Arkansas public schools, taking a well deserved rest from an almost complete absense of order in the school classroom, extreme lack of support from Admin, and a new breed of spoiled parents mixed with apathetic people with offspring who just call themselves parents.I'm not purposely avoiding scintific discussion, just concentrating on what I consider far more important for now. I'll rest my case on the arguments put up by lots of convincing creationists on the forums, until I catch up.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Certainly a strawman. The analogy was rediculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------It is a very simple mater of deciding who to ask for information. Do you ask people who have been trained and work in the field? Or do you ask people who don't? Why is this so hard to understand?WS: Here is the fallacy of your analogy, which I interpret to be a strawman argument, because you chose an unrelated example that is used to attack the real issue. I am proposing simply that the polls are useful to determine what people are thinking, not necessarily what is true or untrue about what is though about. If they think evolution is too weak to exclude creation science, then that is a reality evolutionists will have to deal with. It is evident a growing slight majority of Americans are favoring equal treatment, and that those more concerned about the issue are now becoming more involved in changing the situation in public classrooms. Because the samples are randomly generated within a statistically sound model of analysis, it can be postulated there is perceived truth in creation science itself, as much so if anyone postulates there is perceived truth in evolution believed by nearly half of the population.
Truth concerning nature is obviously a multiple entity with at least two versions in the minds of people, a false dualism at least. Its is very real, regardless of its source. People may correctly decide scientists are biased in their beliefs about empirical data, whether they do so or not, since it is known some do make mistakes in observations and conclusions about faulty as well as proper observations- nobody is perfect. Slight bias because of basic underlying beliefs can easily corrupt future use of science methods, if not just the analysis of data and asumptions made around the data. No rational person would step out saying the data itself is faulty if it passes statistical analysis standards, but it is fair to assume no human is always correctly interpreting the data. It may be that most people believe both creationists and evolutionists are misinterpreting the data. So what value is there in taking only the opinion of the scientists. It appears to me it is their responsibility to adequately present evolution in a way that suspicion of misinterpretation is not probable.Your scenario makes taking the advice of the professionals equal to a life or death choice, using an example of an injury to a child where there is no reasonable alternative but to seek medical help. There is no logical set of choices, the only alternative being criminal neglect. It is not criminal neglect for anyone to be an anti-evolutionist, nor is any life endangered, except maybe the ending of many academic careers devoted to evolution.Your case is a classic stawman argument.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: You are making a case here in this post for us to accept from you that significant numbers of people who believe in evolution has little to do with what is supportable. That fits my belief, that many people say they believe in it, but probably couldn't explain why. (often) their belief is unsupportable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------And the point is? It also doesn't matter if significant numbers of people who believe in evolution cannot explain why they believe. What matters is that the belief is supportable, if one is knowledgable in the field.WS: The point is you expect standards to apply to others but not yourself. It does matter what a majority of people believe, which preceeds legislation or becomes part of a culture. Most nations are full of people influenced by religion to the point they sometimes accept malnutrition in their children and shortened lifespans for all. They can't support their lifestyle scientifically, not explaining logically why they pour their milk over a stone elephant while babies are deprived of its nourishment.You believe evolution is supportable scientifically to the exclusion of anything creation scientists come up with? There is a large argument in that, especially if they omit religion from their claims, and those claims are generated by actual scientists whose works are published in peer reviewed journals. If they are found to be consistent practicioners of the science methods with approval of their peers in day to day science articles, what logic lies in the automatic rejection of opinions when science-based opinion is linked up with religion in a manner that just shows agreement between their professional opinion and what the Bible says? It appears to me valid science fact is disregarded if it agrees with the Bible. If that is acceptable, then western civilization should reject any laws on the books that agree with the Bible laws on the basis of the existence of agreement, not considering the merits of the laws in place. I think you agreed that practice is unfair, but retracted a little by commenting on the poor science generated by creationists. I agree, there are some creationist websites that offer up a lot of speculation. But I disagree that there is no valid creation science contribution.As to supportability of a belief, certainly almost any belief can be supported scientifically if enough effort is expended, though it should be admitted there are avenues of research that are ignored because certain paths could support competing perspectives. It's like the mode of medical research which plows vast fortunes into development of medicines that can be patented, ignoring the possibility there are natural foods and supplements that would work as well, which are prevalent and can't be patented, like vegetables and fruits from the backyard.Note that within narrow science fields like paleontology, biological systematics professionals are at odds with that crowd, and some paleontologists don't agree with each other. It is absurd to continue believing the opinions of those professionals are equal to the validity of their empirical data or amount to absolute truth to the exclusion of third or fourth perspectives, such as creation science opinions. If what they regard as immutable fact were just that, there would be no rift among those professionals. The reason there is disparity of beliefs is those beliefs are just that- beliefs-based on other beliefs, based on interpretations of data. The arguments are obviously over interpretations and conclusions, not the data. Faulty data is easily discovered and deleted, while the opinions born of such data can last beyond reason.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Wouldn't you be already guilty of that, confusing first aid for an injured child with use of a pollster to find out how many people believe creation science should be taught alongside evolution?
----------------------------------------------------------------------I don't care how many people believe creation should be taught along-side of evolution. If it cannot be supported by evidence it is not science. You are still confusing the issue. Or you have the belief that schools should teach whatever the general public wants, true or not. I hadn't thought of that. Is this your position?WS: That is a fatal flaw if you are serious about defending evolution-only teaching in classrooms. Public opinion could easily arise to totally exclude evolution, regardless its truths. Creation science NEEDS evolution around as a whipping boy. It should be evident there are many people, including a growing list of actual scientists, who believe there is scientific evidence for at least an anti-evolution position. If enough of the scientists say there is science truth in "creation science", then there probably is some science truth in it, else one must begin to believe that only scientists who believe in evolution are true scientists, even tough some are neutral. But I have read articles from respected scientists that doubt evolution, yet they refuse to speculate on alternative explanations of origin of species. That stance gets them published in the journals, as long as they don't make the religion connection.I do think it is culturally necessary to teach students about what is going on around them. I've been required to cover evolution in the classroom, and I saw to it my students learned what they were required to learn. I was quite timid about injecting doubt by introducing creation science opinions directly to students in the classroom, which wouldn't be the case should I return to teaching science. What I can say with confidence is that probably none of those students are prepared to deal with creationist theory, having only learned a little about evolution, easily thwarted by arguments that obviously engender great doubt and confusion for the holder of evolution-only knowledge. "Out there" the actual useful education about this issue begins if they pursue it. Most don't, chosing to allow that knowledge to vaporize as much as possible. It really doesn't matter how intensely the subject is presented in the classroom. If the students fail to find a good use for it, they lose it.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: What the scientists have to say about it is remote from what the public wants to believe. The polls demonstrate there is a gulf of incredulity between them. You see, I already know and could predict what those scientists say. It takes a poll to determine what the public is thinking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You are arguing that the schools should teach whatever the public wants, true or not. This is getting scary.WS: I don't think you can rightly say I'm proposing that exclusive to other reasons for equal treatment. See above. Since this is a hotly debated subject, it should be plain as the nose on your face that students need to know both sides of the issue at least until one side or the other no longer exists. The current practice would be about equal to only presenting students with Amarican history with no mention of world history; only fiction novels to the exclusion of biographies in English-Lit. One reason equal treatment must be resisted is that evolutionists fear the students will relate to and believe that which they oppose. You can't say the public should completely trust the message of the one side, in view of frauds on the public such as Piltdown Man. I realize it was the scientific community that self-corrected that, but not until after people were deluded for 40 years (? +/-), and the lie remained in textbooks for years after the exposure, indelibly stamping minds with deliberate promotion of untruth. Those so affected won't be able to study it out enough to reverse the beliefs they formed, being beyond their active education phase of life. But that one event was, I believe, pivotal towards a concerted effort to raise up a growing body of anti-evolutionists. The logical solution is to arm students with all the facts and teach them process thinking rather than just memorizing facts. I think such students would be stronger academically, brought through a learning spiral that emphasizes constructive analysis of competing perspectives, including any challenge to standardized science curriculum.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Almost all public school and college textbooks in the sciences are overwhelmingly written by multiple contributing authors from the evolutionist pool, with probably not one article from a known creationist, until very recently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Avoiding the issue. Evolutionists do not control education.WS: Not avoiding. People like me abdicated for valid reasons, leaving evolutionists in place over the past several decades. I was the last openly Christian science teacher in our school, and the only science teacher to openly discuss any belief in creation science among other teachers. Now that the courts are lining up to allow INCLUSION of voluntary teaching of creation science, it seems much more enticing, but other problems like salary are far from fixed.Teacher's unions and associations affect education far more than any other force besides funding. Union members are heavily involved in political races for the school board, sometimes unfairly influencing voters to support their candidate, and they influence education oficials through near terrorism with threats of lawsuits and defamation, virtual blackmail, and dirty politics. ALL major national and most state public school organizations are pro evolution, raising a furious objection to allowance of teaching of creation science in any form, at any level. Those that favor equal treatment or press for elimination of evolution, are too weak in numbers and finances to have an impact compared to the large ones.I believe the only reason I wasn't badgered over what I might be doing in the classroom, assuming things because they knew I was a Christian, was physical. I stay in shape and am athletic. Nobody there, including coaches, would bother me, but they persecuted other people who dared to admit they didn't like to believe evolution. It is just simply anathema to members of the teachers' unions, being completely opposite to what they promote. I engaged in some heated arguments in which people teamed up aainst me, but were unable to carry through with scientific support, relying on institutional directives. They find safety in their numbers and decrees, not in their understanding.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: The Big Bang and Cosmology topic next door is typical of many other forums where evolutionists argue evolution is supported astrophysically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------The time frame required by evolution is supported by astrophysical data. That doesn't change the fact that scientists specialize adn have a right to stick to thier specialty.WS: I'm glad to see you correct yourself. Sure they have that right, but I think they err in doing so if they are to be of assistance in supporting evolution against the rising tide of science opinion to the contrary. Many critics of evolution draw from many fields to make powerful arguments. I would point out that of the scientists that stick to their specialty, few are able to contend with scientists knowledgeable in multiple fields, accounting for the recent decade of serious debate losses by the best that evolutionists had to pit against creationists.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen their newsletters in the teacher's lounge over the years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Yikes.... you're a teacher!!!!WS: Don't panic. I can no longer afford to remain a teacher. I have a retirement income to build. That $400 a month teacher retirement fund won't spread very far, even with SS added in.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: Are you trying to state there is no "creation science" entity that is addressing science matters without reference to the Bible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------No. I am saying that there are no "creation science" entities addressing science matters with science.WS: Then you are either biasd or not paying attention.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WS: So am I to assume you are a scientist qualified to judge the works put out by those "creation" scientists? Or do you go by what the websites say about them? Is your opinion first or second hand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------ah..... that old stand-by ad hominem. It doesn't matter that I am no professional scientist. I have spent many many years digging and thinking. My opinions are my own, and I can support them or I'll retract.WS: Then you think your own "digging" is a suitable substitute for higher education in particular science fields mixed with years of practice and research and peer review? I would think the best of your opinions would be but a shadow of what is really available. I prefer to rest on the opinions of people who've paid the high price to be considered scientists whose opinions are more learned.At best you can only be a commentator, as I could be, though you are probably better armed for now concerning the particulars of most recent evolution theory developments. Again, my emphasis is concerning the assaults on the Bible for whatever reasons.