Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Only one version?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 61 of 106 (19510)
10-10-2002 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Mammuthus
10-10-2002 8:21 AM


I'm afraid that when your post went into full bold that I again was unable to follow who said what. I found the post pretty interesting up to that point, hope you can find time to fix it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2002 8:21 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2002 11:58 AM Percy has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 62 of 106 (19525)
10-10-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
10-10-2002 9:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
I'm afraid that when your post went into full bold that I again was unable to follow who said what. I found the post pretty interesting up to that point, hope you can find time to fix it.
--Percy

****************************
Hi Percy,
I think I fixed it.
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 10-10-2002 9:58 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 10-13-2002 11:32 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 106 (19562)
10-10-2002 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Wordswordsman
10-09-2002 9:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
quote:
Your simple denials of fact are pitiful and worth nothing.
As are your hard-headed and baseless assertions.
quote:
Respected archeologists, historians alike have and are verifying not only Jesus but much of the Bible, a fact denied by few scholars.
No dice. You are making this up.
quote:
The large majority differ only in the details, such as what exactly Jesus did say, and what was meely attribute to Him.
Gee.... and that isn't important information .... ????????
quote:
I gave you a start with sources, yet you just up and deny.
As do you, with the source I've named. I am cognizant of facts. I do read what you post and what you cite. And it is not convincing.
quote:
Well, that can work with your beliefs about evolution and the alleged historical figures that supposedly began that myth. Can you prove Charles Darwin lived? PROOF. Not some website cut and paste. Do you have a witness that knew him, saw him, that can prove his claim?
Doesn't realy matter does it? If Charlie were a character from Alice in Wonderland it would make no difference to the ToE. The ToE stands and falls on evidence gathered not on the existence of its founder.
You contradict yourself from above already.
Compare the two statements:
quote:
John:But there are no extra-biblical accounts that are real, verifiable, and meaningful.
quote:
John:There are a very few references to a man named Jesus. Most of those references are questionable and none of them are detailed enough to justify the claim that they are "evidencing the same Jesus the Bible describes"
quote:
You said there are NO accounts real, verifiable, meaningful.
Correct. This is the gist of the first statement. Note that the point of the second statement is that none of the references are meaningful. That is, there are references, but no meaningful ones, the second statement modifying the first.
Again, we are back to your inability to or unwillingness to pay attention. Or maybe you just can't read.
quote:
Then you compound your errors saying there are few references. There are many.
Ok. I stand corrected.... if four or five references are to be considered many.
quote:
On what basis would you decide them questionable?
I researched them.
[quote]Are you a Bible scholar? An archeologist? An historian?[/b][/quote]
Anthropologist by training actually.
quote:
There are professionals in those fields who are in fact qualified to make that judgment.
Yes and you quite conveniently ignore them.
quote:
Few of them are so ignorant as to deny the evidences.
This has already been shown to be false.
quote:
They differ in the interpretations, the motives of Christ, his origins, other details that probably can't be settled empirically.
Are you not understating the importance of these discrepancies?
quote:
Interesting that the Jews didn't publish contradictions to the claims of the writings of the apostles in that generation.
Interesting that Jesus isn't mentioned at all.
quote:
I doubt any Jew of the day was willing to contradict what the masses saw, touched, believed.
What? This is non-sense?
quote:
Skeptics had to wait until all the original witnesses were dead.
As did the authors of the Bible. I wonder why?
quote:
You miss the point that those known accounts with little detail do agree in summary of what the Bible says about Jesus.
You miss the point that agreement in summary is meaningless. If I said "JFK was president" it says nothing about JFK or what he did as president.
quote:
The matter was of little emphasis to a man like Josephus, more interested in chronicling Jewish history.
Christianity was a Jewish cult. Why would this be of little interest? It seems like it should have been of a great deal of interest.
Josephus, by the way, mentions about twenty or so individuals named 'Jesus'.
quote:
Disappointed?
No. I was curious as to your objectivity and you haven't any. This is what I expected.
quote:
Even the best hypothesis is not proof of a certainty. It is less potent than a theory.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been around awhile and is still kicking. What is the point?
quote:
A hypothesis needs to be self-testable in its own assumption
You mean it needs to be self-consistent.
quote:
so what value is there in any assumption that disagrees with the spiritual?
What?
quote:
I'll remember that when it comes time for you to cite a precious source.
You've missed the point. My sources are based on reproducible experiment and/or observation and reason. The Bible has none of that.
quote:
Very likely I'll simply deny its validity, deciding that now, regardless its strength.
Very likely you will. See how you are?
quote:
Sources are out, right?
No. Wrong. In you righteous fury, you've missed the point. I did not say "ditch all sources" I asked "why your source?" This question you have not answered.
quote:
Yours, mine, every source is pointless, meaningless, fabrication, not even real, just a quirk in an energy stream, which itself is probably not really there?
Feel better now?
quote:
Relatively few people on earth believe any of that stuff. Why? Nobody I know claims to have seen any of the creatures, nor have I read of any claiming to have witnessed such characters as in Greek or any other mythology.
Interesting... nobody I know claims to have seen God.
quote:
They were not presented as visions or dreams, but supposedly actual experiences
I do not believe there was a strong line of demarcation between the two. Cultural anthropology would do you a world of good.
quote:
The Bible, however, enjoys the support of many scholarly Jewish, Christian, other religious, and entirely secular archeologists and other scientists digging up and studying actual verifying relics in Bible lands that testify to the veracity of the Bible.
Spiffy assertion. But no citations.
Some archeologists have found Troy. Does this mean that the Greek gods have been proven? By your logic it does.
quote:
But of course you wouldn't browse such knowledge sources lest you realize the truth?
ooooh.... ouch..... painful.......
quote:
There were no claims of impossible creatures seen by men, except for the obvious witness of dinosaurs and other extinct animals recorded in its pages. Their lithified remains remain as evidence they were real creatures.
The Biblical Isrealites saw dinosaurs first hand? WOWIE!!!!!! This is the most absurd thing you've posted so far. Congrats.
quote:
MOST scholars, even the most secular of them, agree on the harmony of the books of the Bible, though not necessarily the meaning of the contents.
Assertion without evidence.
quote:
What are you so afraid of? You put forth an agorophobic air about it.
I am abnormally afraid of wide open spaces?
quote:
So let me see some examples of that. We know how easy it is to back that up concerning Christianity. How about some Buddhist prayers answered? Who would answer them? Yeah, let's begin with Buddhism.
Ok. We start with Buddhism. Very curious that you choose to start with a religion that has no God in any western sense of the term. However, many forms of Buddhism abandon this atheism and incorporate various local dieties-- Shinto for example. Nonetheless, the presence or absense of god does not seem to effect the ability of people to believe in answered prayer.
EtherBods.com is for sale | HugeDomains
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.tonidunlap.com/prayer.htm
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.buddhajones.com/Features/Buddha-ing101/PrayersAnswered.html
quote:
Then lets take on Hinduism.
There is a reference to answered prayer toward the bottom.
Hinduism Today - Authentic resources for a billion-strong religion in renaissance
I am tired of doing you homework for you, so I shall stop now.
quote:
Meanwhile, lets consider how much more or less palatable Buddhism is than Christianity.
I never said that Buddhism was either more or less palatable than Christianity. I said only that I could find people who believe it.
quote:
Are you up to backing your statements?
Always.
quote:
Of interest to me will be the authenticity of their religious claims versus the veracity of the Bible.
Start another topic.
[/B][/QUOTE]
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-09-2002 9:10 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 106 (19570)
10-10-2002 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Mammuthus
10-09-2002 5:45 AM


quote:
WSpinion without basis. Numbers of rebels is no proof the minority belief is wrong.
YOU:However, you are the one who almost without exception makes appeals to the authority of poll results you find doing Google searches as demonstrating that what the majority thinks must be correct as you do further down in your post to me. So you can't have it both ways.
I think you don't understand what the term "appeal to authority" means in this style dialog. I refer to bonifide, statistical data that stands up under the test of mathematical statisticians. Polls do provide valuable data as to what people think. A very small sample size yields extremely accurate data with high confidence. You only demonstrate ignorance in those two points. Please catch up. Let's add yet another point in which you express ignorance. Google is a powerful search engine that helps me find websites. Some of the websites I quote from are official government sites, and I go directly to the pollsters. You may do so likewise, but will need a credit card to access the data other than obtain a short summary of the polls by subject. I think I am on far better foundation than you who simply deny, deny, deny. You seem to be saying you don't intend to try to understand a fundamentalist Christian position. Save me the time of responding if that is your agenda.
quote:
WS:Virtually all of those religions have no proofs of any intervention whatsoever between their gods and men.
*********************
YOUpinion without basis
No accounts of neighboring nations(kings) acknowledge they were physically punished or affected by the gods of neighboring enemies.
****************************
I'm searching for an archeological article about some inscriptions that are considered written or dictated by a neighboring king in Syria (Assyria). There are several such testimonies, but too many articles to search through. I got there by verifying the decree of Darius. It is too easy for you deny, usually ignoring the truth when it is proven. Should I bother? Will you say yu could care less after my spending many hours relocating evidence? At what point might I think you are aware much of what you've posted so far is unfounded denial?
[quote]WS:The Babylonian kings so acknowledged. There is a WEALTH of extra-biblical evidence of much of the stories of God's dealings with the enemies of Israel. There is also far more secular ancient history on the side of the Bible than most people, including Christians, realize: Page not found - Biblical Archaeology Society[/b]
****************************************
YOU:Every religion has its own dogma that each believes is "obviously" supported and that all others are wrong.[/quote]
You are not aware of the fact that most archeologists verify biblical events, names, claims, though sometimes reluctantly? Even secular historians marvel over the accuracy of the Bible, and its efficacy is undeniable among all but determined skeptics like you. Your statement lacks the support it needs to make all other religious claims equal to those of the Bible. A quick review of world religions, ancient-modern, reveals most of them offer no personal god whatsoever, therefore make no claims as to exclusivity. Islam claims exclusivity, but has no personal god interested in interacting with men. There is no comparison between any world religion, their claims, or any other feature, to that of the Bible. The religion of the Bible is unique, alone, independent of all the others, self-subjected to many tests of its claims.
quote:
WS:you can't prevail leaning on forwarded lies of atheist webpages and other Bible skeptic sources.
YOU:You can't prevail by the completely unscientific, dogmatic, wishful thinking of forwarded lies of fundamentalist conservative egocentric unskeptical sources either.
Illogical. One cannot be a fundamentalist Christian and a liar both.
quote:
...the entire point of this forum is that religion (specifically a fundamentalist sub sect) is trying to claim that it is the same as the scientific method i.e. creation science.
I disagree that is the point of this forum. If it is, the existence of it is pointless, for fundamentalists are making no such claim. One here or there might, but overall, that is a misconception. The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific journal, nor do most creationists believe their religion = scientific method. I believe your approach is a classic "red herring" fallacy. It might be true that many fundamentalists, and most other groups, couldn't define "scietific method", but I've not seen any equate religion with that. Where might I observe that claim?
quote:
YOU:Most don't give a crap until religious groups claim that their mythology should be taught as science...particularly when they do not even know what the science is they are against..i.e. do you personally even know what the theory of evolution entials? What are the major tenets? Have you read Darwin?
I have another thought in answer to that. I've been in on the reviews of the proposed new science textbooks, even though not under contract lately. I like what I see. There isn't a scripture in any textbook, no doctrine whatsoever. Only references to divinity or the possibility of a god that created, but not by name. The science topics are essentially unchanged, though with updates, some not so kind toward evolutionists, logging some of the frauds in recent history. The main thing I remember is there were no direct statements of cause through evolution without some discussion of alternative theories of explanation. The phrase "the horse evolved from...." is gone, and all like it. Now an example would be "some believe the horse evolved from....while other scientists believe many original species of horse simply became extinct reducing the original numbers...". None of it teaches religion. They simply leave open the fact there is deep divide among scientists, leaving it up to the student to arrive at his own conclusion about origins and where the various species came from. However, the lesson plans still require them to learn (well, to be taught) all of the former state-required elements. I don't recall seeing any indication any student would be required to show proficiency in anything religious. The emphasis is on awareness, not on dogma. I didn't follow up on which texts were selected or when they will be offered. It is just a matter of a little time when most if not all states will have set that in motion, and you will be able to borrow some textbooks, see for yourself there is no religious teachngs, just general references to possible divine intervention. Any person could insert the name of their god in those references.
quote:
WS:Can you back that up? Sounds like your OPINION omly. Got some polls to support you? ANYTHING? Besides, you atheists are losing in the education arena. I think the list is up to 31 states now allowing insertion of official creation science curriculum. Where is your majority now? The minority appears to be getting its way. Hummmmm.
*******************************
YOU:No, America is losing in the education arena...further erosion of the primary school system will lead to a nation of morons dependent on foreign talent for economic advancement...And do YOU have any support that all evolutionary biologists are athiests..You are truly ignorant.
As to backing up the statement...when do you see scientists engaging religious groups other than in cases where relgious fundamentalists try to impose their mythology on scientific principles...or are you asking a different question?
Until Christians arose in reaction to the tide of atheism in the schools, education WAS deteriorating quickly. Apathy was rampant among students AND teachers. Education seemed to be of no use anymore, and people just couldn't seem to figureout why. But now the statistics are showing some signs of slow improvement. Time will tell.
I find it amusing that you think our education system will result in a nation of morons. You are burdened with many lies.
Biology teachers associations are admittedly mostly atheist or agnostic, all supporting national evolution-only creeds with wording that would repel any true Christian. I dropped out of all those associations years ago. The newsletters sometimes were alarming, as though a national call for the eradication of Christians who oppose evolution. Comments by pastors against evolution were the headlines, causing the editors to rage against fundamentalists. The simple answer for most science teachers was to just buckle and avoid any public acknowledgment of their faith to keep in good standing. I'm not made that way.
quote:
WS:Evolution. I taught it for 17 years, in ever increasing doses as the textbooks included more. I considered evolution one of those givens from high school days until I began to run into creation science knowledge. I was changing my views already by the time I became a Christian. I read Darwin, and many other now classic books on evolution, but added to that many written by creationists. There is enough material on both sides to warrant a balanced presentation, if for no other reason than to stimulate young minds.
******************************************************++
YOU:However, I find this highly unlikely as you have taught evolution as you have shown absolutely no knowledge of it....you only answered one part of the question as well...what are the tenets of the theory of evolution? What was the great synthesis? Hint: what does transmission genetics have to do with evolution....
My avoidance of talk of evolution is purposeful, not wishing to leave the topic. You are trying to distract, avoiding the real issues. If I wanted to discuss your stuff, I'd be "over there". I am quite aware of the theory, which is laced throughout most high school science topics. You apepar to have a narrow view of the issue, failing to distinguish between evolution in general and I presume biological evolution based on the next question asked. Biological evolution is defined loosely as change of a population over a longer time span than the lifetime of any one individual organism, the changes effected by inherited genetic materials, detected by observation of the alelle frequency of genes within a population. There are many mechanics involved, but modern genetics concentrates on the characteristics of DNA.
So what does that have to do with this topic?
quote:
WS:The point to be wisely gained is that there is no way to disprove the Bible. I use it as A source in deduction of what is reality. Note that I did not claim I sought to prove anything about Vishnu, real or unreal. However, I have yet to meet anyone believing in that claiming any personal relationship or intervention from Vishnu. Few religions have their gods acting among men in any real way. They are more accurately concepts rather than beings able to interact.
**************************************+
YOU:You use it as a source in deduction of reality? So you do or do not take it literally? Just curious.
Ever meet a Hindu? There are other religions that also believe in direct interventions of their gods so your statement is not supported by fact.
[Added missing close quote. --Admin]
I do take the Bible literally where its contents are obviously to be taken literally. I don't take the obviously figurative as literal.
I already announced here that a former Hindu high caste man from India will be here in my home Tuesday for the third time in as many years. You can engage him some then, getting some interesting perspective only a Hindu would know. His English is not good. If there is someone here who understands his particular dialect and written code, maybe it would be better for an interpreter to step in. Otherwise, you can ask some peculiar questions and let him tell me what to type.
quote:
You quote scripture and claim it is fact. You claim your opinion is fact including the denigration of Islam and other religions,..even other christian sects particularly catholics. So your manner is even more unfit in a forum of debate.
You would have me abandon the tenets of my faith, while you hold out your own tenets of the pagan religion of evolution? Evolutionists claim those are facts, though not proven. I have supportive evidences for my religion, you have claimed supportive evidences for evolution. Counterclaims galore. While you swim in liquid sulphur or whatever it is down there, you can meditate upon who was right. Of course I denigrate Islam and all the others, because the God of the Bible leaves no room for tolerance of them. None. Zilch.
You seem to have totally forgotten the whole point of this topic thread. I am not debating evolution at this time. I am interested in the Bible inerrancy issue.
Such a long post, and too many interruptions. I have work to do. I'll return here later.
[This message has been edited by Admin, 10-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Mammuthus, posted 10-09-2002 5:45 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Mammuthus, posted 10-11-2002 5:31 AM Wordswordsman has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 65 of 106 (19614)
10-11-2002 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Wordswordsman
10-10-2002 5:19 PM


Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WSpinion without basis. Numbers of rebels is no proof the minority belief is wrong.
M:However, you are the one who almost without exception makes appeals to the authority of poll results you find doing Google searches as demonstrating that what the majority thinks must be correct as you do further down in your post to me. So you can't have it both ways.
WS:
I think you don't understand what the term "appeal to authority" means in this style dialog. I refer to bonifide, statistical data that stands up under the test of mathematical statisticians. Polls do provide valuable data as to what people think. A very small sample size yields extremely accurate data with high confidence.
M: Well WS, what a surprise...you think a small samples size leads to accurate data with high confidence...I see you are not well versed in statistics...ever wonder why people try to gather LARGE sample sizes when they can?
WS:
You only demonstrate ignorance in those two points.
M: You win on this count I only scored two points...you have demonstrated ignorance on every point you have brought up.
WS:
Please catch up.
M: Please inform youself before embarrassing yourself.
WS:
Let's add yet another point in which you express ignorance. Google is a powerful search engine that helps me find websites. Some of the websites I quote from are official government sites, and I go directly to the pollsters. You may do so likewise, but will need a credit card to access the data other than obtain a short summary of the polls by subject.
M: So you never read books? Why are not all the sites you quote from official government sites. And do you really go directly to the pollsters? Considering I can find easily polls that claim exactly the opposite of what you find I find it highly unlikely.
WS:
I think I am on far better foundation than you who simply deny, deny, deny. You seem to be saying you don't intend to try to understand a fundamentalist Christian position. Save me the time of responding if that is your agenda.
M: I don't think you have any foundation at all WS. When I pointed out to you that most scientists are christians you claimed they are not "real christians". You thus undermine your own statements when you appeal to the large numbers of christians who believe in the bible, god, etc etc as you claim that a large swathe of them are not christian by your personal twisted definition. If pushed you would probably have to conclude you are the only christian in the world as nobody is as true a christian as you i.e. megalomania induced belief that you are in a position to judge anybody. You are in denial..not me...and YOUR fundamentalist position is clear.
I know very well what Google is. However, next time I publish a paper I will not be referencing websites I found there.
WS:Virtually all of those religions have no proofs of any intervention whatsoever between their gods and men.
Mpinion without basis
No accounts of neighboring nations(kings) acknowledge they were physically punished or affected by the gods of neighboring enemies.
****************************[/quote]
I'm searching for an archeological article about some inscriptions that are considered written or dictated by a neighboring king in Syria (Assyria). There are several such testimonies, but too many articles to search through. I got there by verifying the decree of Darius. It is too easy for you deny, usually ignoring the truth when it is proven.
M: Your inability to provide compelling arguments or supporting evidence for your claims makes it easy for my to deny.
WS:
Should I bother? Will you say yu could care less after my spending many hours relocating evidence? At what point might I think you are aware much of what you've posted so far is unfounded denial?
M: Show supporting evidence that my posts are unfounded denial...I have been waiting for that all along. Your insults and protestations that I am denying your illigitimate "proof" do nothing to support your agenda...I would also say you should not bother since if you read my question this is not what I was asking for. You would actually have to find out about OTHER religions to answer my statement.
previous post, WS:The Babylonian kings so acknowledged. There is a WEALTH of extra-biblical evidence of much of the stories of God's dealings with the enemies of Israel. There is also far more secular ancient history on the side of the Bible than most people, including Christians, realize: Page not found - Biblical Archaeology Society[/b]
****************************************
M:Every religion has its own dogma that each believes is "obviously" supported and that all others are wrong.[/quote]
You are not aware of the fact that most archeologists verify biblical events, names, claims, though sometimes reluctantly? Even secular historians marvel over the accuracy of the Bible, and its efficacy is undeniable among all but determined skeptics like you.
M: List them with the organizations they work for and cite their publications. Your claims are not supported otherwise.
WS:
Your statement lacks the support it needs to make all other religious claims equal to those of the Bible. A quick review of world religions, ancient-modern, reveals most of them offer no personal god whatsoever, therefore make no claims as to exclusivity.
M: Which clearly shows you know nothing about most world religions...
WS:
Islam claims exclusivity, but has no personal god interested in interacting with men. There is no comparison between any world religion, their claims, or any other feature, to that of the Bible. The religion of the Bible is unique, alone, independent of all the others, self-subjected to many tests of its claims.
M: LOL! self subjected to tests of its claims....figures you would make such a statment...WS is great because WS asked himself if he is great and the answer was yes because WS said so thus WS is great..LOL!
previous post, WS:you can't prevail leaning on forwarded lies of atheist webpages and other Bible skeptic sources.
M:You can't prevail by the completely unscientific, dogmatic, wishful thinking of forwarded lies of fundamentalist conservative egocentric unskeptical sources either.
Illogical. One cannot be a fundamentalist Christian and a liar both.
M: Seems to work for lots of you guys
previous post, M...the entire point of this forum is that religion (specifically a fundamentalist sub sect) is trying to claim that it is the same as the scientific method i.e. creation science.
WS:
I disagree that is the point of this forum. If it is, the existence of it is pointless, for fundamentalists are making no such claim. One here or there might, but overall, that is a misconception. The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific journal, nor do most creationists believe their religion = scientific method. I believe your approach is a classic "red herring" fallacy. It might be true that many fundamentalists, and most other groups, couldn't define "scietific method", but I've not seen any equate religion with that. Where might I observe that claim?
M: I would suggest you read posts in some of the other threads and forums on this very board to see that your statement is falsified in part. The only thing that has been shown on this board is that not a single creationist knows what science is. It is not a red herring either. YECs claim that do to the inerrancy of the bible in their opinion, science may not contradict it...and when science demonstrates that a literal interpretation of the bible is not consitent with reality, creationists reject the data....therefore inerrancy of the bible and science is an appropriate topic in this forum.
previos post, M:Most don't give a crap until religious groups claim that their mythology should be taught as science...particularly when they do not even know what the science is they are against..i.e. do you personally even know what the theory of evolution entials? What are the major tenets? Have you read Darwin?
WS: I have another thought in answer to that. I've been in on the reviews of the proposed new science textbooks, even though not under contract lately. I like what I see.
M: That is tragic for whoever is subjected to the science classes that get the textbooks. Since you do not even know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution that is a generation of students that will be deprived of acurate scientific materials.
WS:
There isn't a scripture in any textbook, no doctrine whatsoever. Only references to divinity or the possibility of a god that created, but not by name. The science topics are essentially unchanged, though with updates, some not so kind toward evolutionists, logging some of the frauds in recent history. The main thing I remember is there were no direct statements of cause through evolution without some discussion of alternative theories of explanation. The phrase "the horse evolved from...." is gone, and all like it. Now an example would be "some believe the horse evolved from....while other scientists believe many original species of horse simply became extinct reducing the original numbers...". None of it teaches religion. They simply leave open the fact there is deep divide among scientists, leaving it up to the student to arrive at his own conclusion about origins and where the various species came from. However, the lesson plans still require them to learn (well, to be taught) all of the former state-required elements. I don't recall seeing any indication any student would be required to show proficiency in anything religious. The emphasis is on awareness, not on dogma. I didn't follow up on which texts were selected or when they will be offered. It is just a matter of a little time when most if not all states will have set that in motion, and you will be able to borrow some textbooks, see for yourself there is no religious teachngs, just general references to possible divine intervention. Any person could insert the name of their god in those references.
M: If it spreads then scientific education in America is dead. We can forget about any meaningful progress until this stupidity fades. Since you have to include non scientific crap like divine intervention in a SCIENCE class you might as well teach the kids astrology, alchemy, and the sad fact that it is not known how gravity works..after all it is only a theory...why not let each kid believe that monkeys in their butts cause speciation? If you want to push religion into science class then why not just end scientific education in America and go back to being..Amish.
previous post, M:No, America is losing in the education arena...further erosion of the primary school system will lead to a nation of morons dependent on foreign talent for economic advancement...And do YOU have any support that all evolutionary biologists are athiests..You are truly ignorant.
As to backing up the statement...when do you see scientists engaging religious groups other than in cases where relgious fundamentalists try to impose their mythology on scientific principles...or are you asking a different question?
WS:
Until Christians arose in reaction to the tide of atheism in the schools, education WAS deteriorating quickly. Apathy was rampant among students AND teachers. Education seemed to be of no use anymore, and people just couldn't seem to figureout why. But now the statistics are showing some signs of slow improvement. Time will tell.
M: Funny, the greatest acceleration in discoveries in the biological science occurred AFTER the Scopes monkey trial and when religion was taken out of the classroom. Your unsupported statement above pure pitiful wishful thinking.
WS:
I find it amusing that you think our education system will result in a nation of morons. You are burdened with many lies.
M: If students get a "fundie christian" education, those students will be blatantly uninformed and incapable of doing science since rather than using critical thinking when confronted with unknown phenomenon they will just assume divine intervention and stop questioning. You are a prime example.
WS:
Biology teachers associations are admittedly mostly atheist or agnostic, all supporting national evolution-only creeds with wording that would repel any true Christian.
M: Yeah, doesnt it suck when a group has actual science and supporting data for their science rather than the ignorant spoutings of fundies...that must really be painful for you.
WS:
I dropped out of all those associations years ago. The newsletters sometimes were alarming, as though a national call for the eradication of Christians who oppose evolution.
M: Your posts sound like you would be gassing all the none-fundamentalists if you had half a chance. It goes to the issue that religion has no place in a science class....I think it is less surprising that you dropped out of those associations than that you were in them in the first place.
WS:
Comments by pastors against evolution were the headlines, causing the editors to rage against fundamentalists. The simple answer for most science teachers was to just buckle and avoid any public acknowledgment of their faith to keep in good standing. I'm not made that way.
M: ...and you were free to disassociate from the organization.
previous post, WS:Evolution. I taught it for 17 years, in ever increasing doses as the textbooks included more. I considered evolution one of those givens from high school days until I began to run into creation science knowledge. I was changing my views already by the time I became a Christian. I read Darwin, and many other now classic books on evolution, but added to that many written by creationists. There is enough material on both sides to warrant a balanced presentation, if for no other reason than to stimulate young minds.
M:However, I find this highly unlikely as you have taught evolution as you have shown absolutely no knowledge of it....you only answered one part of the question as well...what are the tenets of the theory of evolution? What was the great synthesis? Hint: what does transmission genetics have to do with evolution
WS: My avoidance of talk of evolution is purposeful, not wishing to leave the topic. You are trying to distract, avoiding the real issues.
M: It is because you cannot talk of it because you don't understand it...opposition for the sake of opposition on your part.
WS:
If I wanted to discuss your stuff, I'd be "over there". I am quite aware of the theory, which is laced throughout most high school science topics. You apepar to have a narrow view of the issue, failing to distinguish between evolution in general and I presume biological evolution based on the next question asked.
M: Interesting statement from you...so distinguish evolution in "general" and biological evolution preferably in less general terms.
WS:
Biological evolution is defined loosely as change of a population over a longer time span than the lifetime of any one individual organism, the changes effected by inherited genetic materials, detected by observation of the alelle frequency of genes within a population. There are many mechanics involved, but modern genetics concentrates on the characteristics of DNA.
M: If you taught it for 17 years I would expect you could define it precisely and not loosely. I would also expect you to see where in your definition you have made mistakes. You really should know what you are opposing before you oppose it....by the way modern genetics concentrates on many things beyond the characteristics of DNA.
WS:
So what does that have to do with this topic?
M: You claim that evolution is false because it is inconsistent with a bible that is inerrant. Educated people claim that your position is not supportable.
Previous post, M:You use it as a source in deduction of reality? So you do or do not take it literally? Just curious.
Ever meet a Hindu? There are other religions that also believe in direct interventions of their gods so your statement is not supported by fact.
WS: I do take the Bible literally where its contents are obviously to be taken literally. I don't take the obviously figurative as literal.
M: Where do you make the distinctions? Is it the same as other christians? Is it the same as other members of your sect? Is it obvious to everyone with a similar worldview as yourself? Is it specifically supported by the bible itself?
WS:
I already announced here that a former Hindu high caste man from India will be here in my home Tuesday for the third time in as many years. You can engage him some then, getting some interesting perspective only a Hindu would know. His English is not good. If there is someone here who understands his particular dialect and written code, maybe it would be better for an interpreter to step in. Otherwise, you can ask some peculiar questions and let him tell me what to type.
M: Out of curiousity, what is this "Hindu high caste man" who does not speak much English meeting you for? I don't have to ask him about Hinduism...I have plenty of colleagues from India (Hindu and christian) to talk to for comparative purposes...interesting religion.
previous post, M: You quote scripture and claim it is fact. You claim your opinion is fact including the denigration of Islam and other religions,..even other christian sects particularly catholics. So your manner is even more unfit in a forum of debate.
WS: You would have me abandon the tenets of my faith, while you hold out your own tenets of the pagan religion of evolution? Evolutionists claim those are facts, though not proven.
M: When did I claim you had to abandon your faith WS?
Your second sentence demonstrates your ignorance of science that hopefully was overcome by the students you claim to have taught for 17 years.
WS:
I have supportive evidences for my religion, you have claimed supportive evidences for evolution. Counterclaims galore.
M: I can do experiments to support my hypothesis and add support for the theory of evolution...you have merely expressed unsubstantiated opinion.
WS:
While you swim in liquid sulphur or whatever it is down there, you can meditate upon who was right.
M:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's actually an endless cruise on the Love Boat but Isaac makes really crappy martinis
LOL!!!!
Sulfur...no wonder my belly button was itching this morning and my breath was stinky.
WS:
Of course I denigrate Islam and all the others, because the God of the Bible leaves no room for tolerance of them. None. Zilch.
M: And that is why like all philosophies based on dictatorship, you will ultimately fail.
WS:
You seem to have totally forgotten the whole point of this topic thread. I am not debating evolution at this time. I am interested in the Bible inerrancy issue.
M: You and your ilk use this issue to claim evolution is false and therefore it is not off topic....you cannot get away so easily
WS:
Such a long post, and too many interruptions. I have work to do. I'll return here later.
M: It must be tiring for you to be wrong so often.
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-10-2002 5:19 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-13-2002 9:18 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 67 by nos482, posted 10-13-2002 9:54 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 106 (19768)
10-13-2002 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Mammuthus
10-11-2002 5:31 AM


After spending valuable time reading several of the posts of the fellow in Germany, I've concluded I'm dealing with a reprobate mind there, a classic "Christian-baiter" atheist. Since those posts were allowed here without critique, with all the personal insults and castigations, what I have to say here is allowable and proper for this list.
It's a riot that he claims to be an anthropologist, or a person with some training in that field. I don't believe that claim, believing rather you are an armchair wannabe. I would suspect a person with training in that discipline would be fairly intelligent. Such a claim casts a dark curtain over the field should he be representative. I am confident that there would be no way of carrying on further dialog with such a person that rejects practically everything I might say, denying sources, requiring proofs while not supporting his own statements. It's all pointless, useless, vanity and vexation of spirit.
One way of proving the ignorance demonstrated in your past few posts is the rejection out of obvious ignorance concerning statistics as applied to polls, sample size terminology, etc. It's inexcusable. Small samples are sufficient for large populations, whereas relatively large samples are needed for very small populations. The larger the sample, the more sure you can be, but the relationship isn't linear. For instance, 500 people polled scientifically can yield a 95% confidence with a very narrow confidence interval (+/- 5% extreme), representing 15 million people. A properly conducted poll of 20,000 Americans can easily represent the entire population of the US with high confidence and accuracy. If the sample size is increased for a large population, the improvement on confidence isn't significally improved enough to warrant the expense of taking larger samples than are customarily taken in polls, except in results of nearly 50-50 opinions from samples of only 5,000. It would be for a small population, such as polling this group. It would be feasible to poll every member here, assuring a very highly reliable opinion survey, but only of this population. This group isn't a fair representation of the nation, being limited to people who use the internet, who are interested in opinions, discussions, who are probably opinionated, who are trying to keep abreast of the issues. That narrows the field to a very small percentage of the population, so concensus here doesn't mean much.
Skeptics cite the possibility of people polled could be lying to pollsters. That has been studied much, and the factor isn't great enough to change the results of polls significantly. The questions can be phrased in ways that false answers can be detected, presente to the population rapidly enough that a person wouldn't be able to carry through an agenda of consitently lying.
There are obvious misuses of the process, such as taking a poll from only viewers of a politically left/liberal, or a right/conservative radio talk show, television program or interest group, claiming the results represent the entire population. That's offset by pollsters that sample randomly using computer generated phone numbers and calling people at hours that will catch both the working class and home-bodies, weekdays and week-end days, across all the factors of race, gender, career, religion, etc. Such polls will of course differ significantly from special interest group polls. Someone in this forum recently cited such a poll that of course defies all scientifically conducted polls, yielding opposite results, a predictable outcome, usefull only to groups intent on brainwashing its constituents.
Pick any book on statistical analysis, or any online tutorial. They all repeat what I'm saying. Your problem is that you dislike what the nationally recognized, mathematician-supported polls have to say about what you believe, so you castigate them as useless unless one of your preferred special interest groups matches your belief. That proves you are not a scientist, or it proves you are too biased to be useful as one. In any event, your overall bias proves you are not fit to be regarded as scientifically minded, abandoning the science method, ignoring factors that are significant. REAL scientists use statistics, the same processes used in polling.
I'm not interested in searching manually through textbooks for you. That takes time, choosing a textbook, going through the index, finding excerpts, typing them out only for you to continue your pattern of denial. You won't find me wasting time on you in the future. It's a ridiculous waste.
I'd suggest that you face up to your ignornace. Go study the issue of polls, learn for yourself the scientifically sound, mathematically supported field of polling statistics. Realize you don't know much about life, or science for that matter. You rely on brainwashing. You hate God, rebel against Him, predictably acting like you do.
I also realize your aversion to online search engines must be accepted as something real with you, so I'll accept that you won't believe whatever I present from there. That ends our dialog. It's illogical, moronic thinking to reject the use of it, but hey, you have a problem that appears irreconcilable. The whole idea of using online sources is to save time looking up subjects and typing. Often the information obtained that way is more current than ten year old textbooks. You apparently fear etherspace and the knowledge it can lead people to concerning exposure of your beliefs, not venturing much past these discussion groups, certainly not into areas not familiar to you. In that vast expanse lies what people need to know to be persuaded evolution is a farce, a cult religion. That is why I've diagnosed you as spacially agorophobic.
Considering the risk of laying before your tender eyes some results of a Google search, I've decided to list them anyway as a parting gesture. Deal with it the best way you can.
Polling, statistics, etc:
404 - Page Not Found.
404 - Page Not Found.
Sample Size Calculator - Confidence Level, Confidence Interval, Sample Size, Population Size, Relevant Population - Creative Research Systems
USA TODAY
"2001: Gallup Poll
(Evolution Challenged) (Reconciliation)
Gallup poll shows U.S. still split over evolution. The results of the most recent survey reveal a nation still torn over the issue of human evolution. A majority (57 percent) of Americans choose "creationism" over "evolution" when asked which term best describes human origins. Yet many people who select "creationism" might not call themselves "creationists." A great number of them do not rule out the possibility of human evolution altogether. Thirty-seven percent of all respondents say that humans evolved over millions of years, yet guided by God. In the 20 years that Gallup has run the same survey, public opinion has changed little."
"2000: Science Standards
(Battle in the Schools) (Reconciliation)
Science standards called "reprehensible." A nationwide study sponsored by The Fordham Foundation laments that 19 U.S. states do "a weak-to-reprehensible job of handling evolution in their science standards." Twelve states shun the word "evolution," and four avoid topics in evolution completely. The study stresses that creationist views have no place in the science classroom, yet also sounds a conciliatory note: "Scientists and science teachers do well to keep in mind that a large majority of Americans believes that faith in God is the surest way to appreciate the wonder and grandeur of life itself. Schools need to recognize and honor that faith."
Evolution: Religion: Evolution Revolution
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN polled its readers, finding the trend revealed in 1914 that showed only 40% of scientists believe in God remains the same today. For a good comment on that:
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/001025belief.html
Your assertion that a majority of scientists believe in God is totally false, again representing your overall ignorance. There are many more references that support the 60% atheist cound among modern scientists. It is also interesting that there is a reformation going on that could turn that ratio 180 degrees in the next decade, especially as the old school retires and dies off.
As I go through your post comments, one by one I see a pattern of blind denial of fact. I can imagine what a discussion about evolution would be like with you- chaotic at best.
A search of several archeology sites brings up thousands of articles that make you look foolish. Most scientists believe archeologists are legitimate scientists, even those who specialize in Bible archeology. It is apparent, though, that most atheists disagree, believing they are too biased. What they don't realizew is that many of those people choose that specialty to attempt to prove the biblical record is inaccurate. They have not been very convincing, usually directly neutralized by other digs and conclusions from data. The problems in that field come not from the scientists uncovering the past, but other related scholars who misuse the results. Even some Isreali Jewish scholars have gone on record as denying the biblical record, suggesting the data allows Israel no rights to their land. They have been adequately neutralized by high profile archeologists, but damage was done. The field is highly politicized, but the facts remain the facts, the data is there, can't be ignored. Interpretations of the facts are biased.
I'm not going to play this game with you. I already realize that no matter what information I post, you will deny either the truth of it, or the validity of the author, if that information neutralizes your beliefs. You will only accept information that supports your tenets, fitting the profile of the average online evolution supporter. This is characteristic of discussion groups dominated by atheists. They are not accountable to anyone since they have no incentive to be honest, objective participants. Morality is necessarily meaningless to them, having no reason to follow any rules or societal manners, prefering such concepts as "relative moralism" or "situation ethics" in the classrooms. Hence the alarm growing among Americans over what impact atheist teachers of evolution are doing to the current generation of developing minds. Education is being taken back by people who have learned the value of biblical morality and the advantage of a person approaching science from God's perspective. They are the ones that will benefit mankind practically, while the atheists entertain atheists.
You are far from being objective or reasonable. You said I "cut and ran" from the teaching field. Many teachers do that, abandoning the career when they realize the retirement can't support them, that a salary of $30,000 isn't enough to maintain decent vehicles, home, or provide our children a good college education. It make beggars of teachers. Coupled with the oppressive policies of the past 8 years of government interference, the field is impractical for anyone trying to raise a family. It has become a place for retirees whose living is already set. My teacher retirement so far will be $350 a month, to which SS would be added ($1,200). Not enough.
In my last year I flunked several 11th grade boys that rarely attended class, couldn't pass tests, never turned in homework, were insolent, disobeying rules, defiant. The NAACP defended them. Admin awarded them C's across the board in a compromise. The following summer I spent over $2,500 in insurance deductable payments for five events of vandalism to my vehicles, yard, and home. Other teachers had similar problems, some more than mine. The school suffered over $30,000 in cumulated vandalism, most of that from a vehicle doing damage to the football field, the landscape, signs, and painted brick walls, all swept under the rug, nobody caught or punished that we know of. One boy was witnessed shooting my home with paintballs, but we couldn't get anything done about it. The girls' P.E. teacher was struck in the abdomen by a teenage boy when she ordered him out of an all-girl class (he popped in to show out), rupturing her spleen, in class, in session. Nobody would testify against the boy out of fear of his threats. We moved out of that school district, and I went into private business to begin rebuilding net worth out of necessity, reassessing the balance of my working years. Teachers are not supported the way they should be.
The biology textbooks have not covered the intense topics found on the debate forums. Evolution is referred to here and there, not actually emphasized, with no more than three pages on DNA/RNA, modern genetics in one chapter. But I taught every bit of what was there, and covered the minimum requirements in the approved lesson plans. I wasn't at all enthusiatic about pressing it, not believing in it, though not well acquainted with creationist views. I did what was required concerning evolution information.
Enough of you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Mammuthus, posted 10-11-2002 5:31 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Mammuthus, posted 10-13-2002 11:59 AM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 10-13-2002 12:27 PM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 10-13-2002 1:34 PM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 75 by Quetzal, posted 10-14-2002 7:46 AM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 77 by doctrbill, posted 10-15-2002 2:01 AM Wordswordsman has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 106 (19770)
10-13-2002 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Mammuthus
10-11-2002 5:31 AM


Never argue with a TRUE believer. It's waste of time since they don't see the reality of the situation, and you'll only frustrate yourself in the end. I know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Mammuthus, posted 10-11-2002 5:31 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 68 of 106 (19779)
10-13-2002 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Mammuthus
10-10-2002 11:58 AM


Hi Mammuthus,
Finally got a chance to read it - thanks for the fix! I noticed something about an earlier request for banning that I must have missed (and I make up my own mind anyway, but I do appreciate emails to admin@ bringing possible violations to my attention - the activity level has gotten beyond what me and Moose can fully follow), but I saw nothing in the post you were replying to or your own post that violates the guidelines. Lively discussion is expected on this topic, and you guys are having a pretty interesting exchange.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2002 11:58 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 69 of 106 (19781)
10-13-2002 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Wordswordsman
10-13-2002 9:18 AM


WS:
After spending valuable time reading several of the posts of the fellow in Germany, I've concluded I'm dealing with a reprobate mind there, a classic "Christian-baiter" atheist. Since those posts were allowed here without critique, with all the personal insults and castigations, what I have to say here is allowable and proper for this list.
M:
This paragraph is a testament to the paucity of the intellect which you possess. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a reprobate reflects on your lack of character. Your behaviour on this forum according to its rules has been far less tolerable than mine and in cases where someone has gone to far they have been chastised i.e. nos482 so you cannot plead persecution either.
WS:
It's a riot that he claims to be an anthropologist, or a person with some training in that field. I don't believe that claim, believing rather you are an armchair wannabe. I would suspect a person with training in that discipline would be fairly intelligent. Such a claim casts a dark curtain over the field should he be representative.
M: It's a riot that you are obtuse enough to indicate that I ever claimed to be an anthropologist. As for a wannabe, I am a successful molecular biologist with an appointment at a very famous museum which is more than you will ever be able to claim in your life. Your questioning my intelligence after making unsubstantiated claims about your speaking for god casts a dark curtain over the little sect of christianity you so desperately cling to.
WS:
I am confident that there would be no way of carrying on further dialog with such a person that rejects practically everything I might say, denying sources, requiring proofs while not supporting his own statements. It's all pointless, useless, vanity and vexation of spirit.
M: I am confident that you say this because you have failed to provide any substantive arguments for your position and would rather run like a dog with his tail between his legs than confront me...you called nos482 a coward for this behavior but you have been nothing but hypocritical in your posts so I am not surprised.
WS:
One way of proving the ignorance demonstrated in your past few posts is the rejection out of obvious ignorance concerning statistics as applied to polls, sample size terminology, etc. It's inexcusable. Small samples are sufficient for large populations, whereas relatively large samples are needed for very small populations. The larger the sample, the more sure you can be, but the relationship isn't linear. For instance, 500 people polled scientifically can yield a 95% confidence with a very narrow confidence interval (+/- 5% extreme), representing 15 million people. A properly conducted poll of 20,000 Americans can easily represent the entire population of the US with high confidence and accuracy. If the sample size is increased for a large population, the improvement on confidence isn't significally improved enough to warrant the expense of taking larger samples than are customarily taken in polls, except in results of nearly 50-50 opinions from samples of only 5,000. It would be for a small population, such as polling this group. It would be feasible to poll every member here, assuring a very highly reliable opinion survey, but only of this population. This group isn't a fair representation of the nation, being limited to people who use the internet, who are interested in opinions, discussions, who are probably opinionated, who are trying to keep abreast of the issues. That narrows the field to a very small percentage of the population, so concensus here doesn't mean much.
M: Interesting paragraph considering this is NOT what you stated previously and is not what I was responding to. So your cut and paste of statistics 101 is meaningless in this context. There is nothing in your paragraph that I did not learn in high school.
WS: Skeptics cite the possibility of people polled could be lying to pollsters. That has been studied much, and the factor isn't great enough to change the results of polls significantly. The questions can be phrased in ways that false answers can be detected, presente to the population rapidly enough that a person wouldn't be able to carry through an agenda of consitently lying.
M: Skeptics cite the demonstrated fact that poll results are influenced by the way the questions are asked and by those with an agenda polling a specific way to achieve a predetermined result i.e. a racist could easily claim that African Americans are less intelligent by sampling only high school drop outs in poor areas and comparing their scores on standardized tests to those of other ethnic groups who studied at elite private schools. And as to bias, you yourself have claimed that any poll coming from what you deem a liberal organization is illegitimate so you will always look for the groups that support you agenda.
WS:
There are obvious misuses of the process, such as taking a poll from only viewers of a politically left/liberal, or a right/conservative radio talk show, television program or interest group, claiming the results represent the entire population. That's offset by pollsters that sample randomly using computer generated phone numbers and calling people at hours that will catch both the working class and home-bodies, weekdays and week-end days, across all the factors of race, gender, career, religion, etc. Such polls will of course differ significantly from special interest group polls. Someone in this forum recently cited such a poll that of course defies all scientifically conducted polls, yielding opposite results, a predictable outcome, usefull only to groups intent on brainwashing its constituents.
M: agreed...imagine that
WS:
Pick any book on statistical analysis, or any online tutorial. They all repeat what I'm saying. Your problem is that you dislike what the nationally recognized, mathematician-supported polls have to say about what you believe, so you castigate them as useless unless one of your preferred special interest groups matches your belief. That proves you are not a scientist, or it proves you are too biased to be useful as one. In any event, your overall bias proves you are not fit to be regarded as scientifically minded, abandoning the science method, ignoring factors that are significant. REAL scientists use statistics, the same processes used in polling.
M: Actually my claim is that scientific truth is not a consensus process of what people want to be taught. You don't poll people to decide how quantum mechanics works. It is you who has no idea what science or the scientific method are thta makes your opinion useless. If people decide to teach a fairy tale in school they should not call it science regardless of what a poll says. And I have stated before that I don't disagree with everything you polls state. That people, you particularly, in the US have some of the poorest education in science in the industrialized world is supported by such statistical studies that you quote. Put religion in the classroom and watch the ignorance soar to new heights.
WS:
I'm not interested in searching manually through textbooks for you. That takes time, choosing a textbook, going through the index, finding excerpts, typing them out only for you to continue your pattern of denial. You won't find me wasting time on you in the future. It's a ridiculous waste.
M: So you are too lazy to actually read through primary literature to back up your claims? This puts into serious doubt your prior claims that you actually follow up the questions and methodology of the polls you trust...and by the way, you should not be looking this stuff up for me...you should be doing it for you. You are the one with the unsupportable claims you wish to argue.
WS:
I'd suggest that you face up to your ignornace. Go study the issue of polls, learn for yourself the scientifically sound, mathematically supported field of polling statistics. Realize you don't know much about life, or science for that matter. You rely on brainwashing. You hate God, rebel against Him, predictably acting like you do.
M: If you had demonstrated that I am actually ignorant on a subject I would learn about it and thus face up to it. Thus far you have only demonstrated time and time again your own lack of background preparation. You are in very little position to claim I don't know much about life. Considering your comments I have seen and interacted with much more of the world than you have. Show how I don't know much about science then by anwering my question in the last post...what are is a fact, hypothesis, and theory in scientific terms. What is the PRECISE definition of evolution? What does genetics have to do with it? A scientist (fill in the blank) a theory? You have dodged this repeatedly. As for god...how can I rebel against something that does not exist?
WS:
I also realize your aversion to online search engines must be accepted as something real with you, so I'll accept that you won't believe whatever I present from there. That ends our dialog. It's illogical, moronic thinking to reject the use of it, but hey, you have a problem that appears irreconcilable. The whole idea of using online sources is to save time looking up subjects and typing. Often the information obtained that way is more current than ten year old textbooks.
M: LOL!!! You assume I am talking about 10 year old textbooks when I suggest something other than the internet? You truly live in a tiny world. What you call saving time I call being too lazy to access primary literature for yourself and relying on websites that may or may not have an agenda you can identify.
WS:
You apparently fear etherspace and the knowledge it can lead people to concerning exposure of your beliefs, not venturing much past these discussion groups, certainly not into areas not familiar to you.
M: "fear etherspace"? This sentence makes no sense and actually sounds like a line out of an L.Ron Hubbard book.
WS:
In that vast expanse lies what people need to know to be persuaded evolution is a farce, a cult religion. That is why I've diagnosed you as spacially agorophobic.
M: Since you don't know what evolution is in the first place or science for that matter your Don King-esque erudition is highly irrelevant
WS:
Considering the risk of laying before your tender eyes some results of a Google search, I've decided to list them anyway as a parting gesture. Deal with it the best way you can.
M: "tender eyes"? You coming on to me there WS?
Polling, statistics, etc:
404 - Page Not Found.
404 - Page Not Found.
Sample Size Calculator - Confidence Level, Confidence Interval, Sample Size, Population Size, Relevant Population - Creative Research Systems
USA TODAY
"2001: Gallup Poll
(Evolution Challenged) (Reconciliation)
Gallup poll shows U.S. still split over evolution. The results of the most recent survey reveal a nation still torn over the issue of human evolution. A majority (57 percent) of Americans choose "creationism" over "evolution" when asked which term best describes human origins. Yet many people who select "creationism" might not call themselves "creationists." A great number of them do not rule out the possibility of human evolution altogether. Thirty-seven percent of all respondents say that humans evolved over millions of years, yet guided by God. In the 20 years that Gallup has run the same survey, public opinion has changed little."
"2000: Science Standards
(Battle in the Schools) (Reconciliation)
Science standards called "reprehensible." A nationwide study sponsored by The Fordham Foundation laments that 19 U.S. states do "a weak-to-reprehensible job of handling evolution in their science standards." Twelve states shun the word "evolution," and four avoid topics in evolution completely. The study stresses that creationist views have no place in the science classroom, yet also sounds a conciliatory note: "Scientists and science teachers do well to keep in mind that a large majority of Americans believes that faith in God is the surest way to appreciate the wonder and grandeur of life itself. Schools need to recognize and honor that faith."
Evolution: Religion: Evolution Revolution
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN polled its readers, finding the trend revealed in 1914 that showed only 40% of scientists believe in God remains the same today. For a good comment on that:
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/001025belief.html
M: I did not deny that many people believe in god or in creationism for that matter. I claim it is irrelevant and science has no reason to take religious views into consideration. Science is driven by observation, generation of TESTABLE hypothesis, accumulation of data, constantly attemping to find flaws in ALL theories, reproducing of results, and importantly performing experiments and gathering supporting data. This is not done by asking people what they want the theory to be or what would be nice to believe in or accepting every stupid idea that comes along unquestioningly. That is the purview of religion. And I do question you surveys. What was education level breakdown for the polls? Demographics? North? South? etc. If, as I have seen in gallup polls, that belief in creationism is correlated with lack of education then "mob rule" should not prevail..and argument you have used youself.
WS:
Your assertion that a majority of scientists believe in God is totally false, again representing your overall ignorance. There are many more references that support the 60% atheist cound among modern scientists. It is also interesting that there is a reformation going on that could turn that ratio 180 degrees in the next decade, especially as the old school retires and dies off.
M: You can delude youself all you want about this issue. Fact is, you don't know any scientists. Scientific talent is drawn from the same population as every other endeavor. And if you believe this stupid statement, why are you not protesting and fighting against chemistry, astronomy, and physics as well?
WS:
As I go through your post comments, one by one I see a pattern of blind denial of fact. I can imagine what a discussion about evolution would be like with you- chaotic at best.
M: As I go through you posts I see blind denial of what I or anyone else says. Your evading discussing evolution with me is your own cowardice and is your own burden to bear.
WS:
A search of several archeology sites brings up thousands of articles that make you look foolish. Most scientists believe archeologists are legitimate scientists, even those who specialize in Bible archeology. It is apparent, though, that most atheists disagree, believing they are too biased. What they don't realizew is that many of those people choose that specialty to attempt to prove the biblical record is inaccurate. They have not been very convincing, usually directly neutralized by other digs and conclusions from data. The problems in that field come not from the scientists uncovering the past, but other related scholars who misuse the results. Even some Isreali Jewish scholars have gone on record as denying the biblical record, suggesting the data allows Israel no rights to their land. They have been adequately neutralized by high profile archeologists, but damage was done. The field is highly politicized, but the facts remain the facts, the data is there, can't be ignored. Interpretations of the facts are biased.
M: List names, institutes, citations for at least 50 cases...you have dodged this repeatedly.
WS:
I'm not going to play this game with you. I already realize that no matter what information I post, you will deny either the truth of it, or the validity of the author, if that information neutralizes your beliefs. You will only accept information that supports your tenets, fitting the profile of the average online evolution supporter.
M: Then what is you point for being on this forum if that is your a priori conclusion? You have been belly aching for the last week about how little time you have. If you want to find a place where everyone agrees with you I am sure you can.
WS:
This is characteristic of discussion groups dominated by atheists. They are not accountable to anyone since they have no incentive to be honest, objective participants. Morality is necessarily meaningless to them, having no reason to follow any rules or societal manners, prefering such concepts as "relative moralism" or "situation ethics" in the classrooms.
M: Actually people like you are the moral relativists. You use your twisted malicious megalomaniacal view of the bible to justifiy every horrible thing you do in life. You can insult, kill, and behave worse than anybody else in the world and justify it by saying you have the backing of your god. Considering how many different sects of each major religion exist and how often they kill one another, I hardly see any "moral" advantage to religiousity.
WS:
Hence the alarm growing among Americans over what impact atheist teachers of evolution are doing to the current generation of developing minds.
M: America is a diverse place..you don't speak for America any more than you do for all christians. And spare us the crap about atheist teachers or are you now claiming all teachers are atheists as well as all scientists?
WS:
Education is being taken back by people who have learned the value of biblical morality and the advantage of a person approaching science from God's perspective. They are the ones that will benefit mankind practically, while the atheists entertain atheists.
M: Those who learn science in the manner you "value" will not become scientists at all. You again have failed to list the scientists sharing your views who have made contributions of any magnitude to science. If they are so great it should be easy for you to list them or even a subset of them, their institutes, and publications....sound of crickets chirping.
WS:
You are far from being objective or reasonable.
M: LOL! It is an honor to raise the ire of a fundie...it surly means I am doing something right
WS:
You said I "cut and ran" from the teaching field.
Many teachers do that, abandoning the career when they realize the retirement can't support them, that a salary of $30,000 isn't enough to maintain decent vehicles, home, or provide our children a good college education. It make beggars of teachers. Coupled with the oppressive policies of the past 8 years of government interference, the field is impractical for anyone trying to raise a family. It has become a place for retirees whose living is already set. My teacher retirement so far will be $350 a month, to which SS would be added ($1,200). Not enough.
M: I will not argue that teaching is a very unattactive field for just about everybody as you are penalized financially for doing what in principle should be a top priority for any country that wants to stay ahead.
WS:
In my last year I flunked several 11th grade boys that rarely attended class, couldn't pass tests, never turned in homework, were insolent, disobeying rules, defiant. The NAACP defended them. Admin awarded them C's across the board in a compromise. The following summer I spent over $2,500 in insurance deductable payments for five events of vandalism to my vehicles, yard, and home. Other teachers had similar problems, some more than mine. The school suffered over $30,000 in cumulated vandalism, most of that from a vehicle doing damage to the football field, the landscape, signs, and painted brick walls, all swept under the rug, nobody caught or punished that we know of. One boy was witnessed shooting my home with paintballs, but we couldn't get anything done about it. The girls' P.E. teacher was struck in the abdomen by a teenage boy when she ordered him out of an all-girl class (he popped in to show out), rupturing her spleen, in class, in session. Nobody would testify against the boy out of fear of his threats. We moved out of that school district, and I went into private business to begin rebuilding net worth out of necessity, reassessing the balance of my working years. Teachers are not supported the way they should be.
M: This story makes me sick and I am sorry you and your colleagues had to go through that. In the end, everybody loses. The teachers are demoralized (or worse physically injured) or quit and the students who think they got away with something don't learn anything.
WS:
The biology textbooks have not covered the intense topics found on the debate forums. Evolution is referred to here and there, not actually emphasized, with no more than three pages on DNA/RNA, modern genetics in one chapter. But I taught every bit of what was there, and covered the minimum requirements in the approved lesson plans. I wasn't at all enthusiatic about pressing it, not believing in it, though not well acquainted with creationist views. I did what was required concerning evolution information.
M: Glad to hear it. If the debate on these forums is more intense it is because those on the evolution side for the most part are well versed in it or work on it as a profession...it is not a bunch of high school students learning.
WS:
Enough of you.
M:
I am surprised that you gave up so easily? You boasted earlier that you would face all us evil atheists down
Actually, I find it a pity that you wish to end debate but that is your choice.
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-13-2002 9:18 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by John, posted 10-13-2002 8:18 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 70 of 106 (19783)
10-13-2002 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Wordswordsman
10-13-2002 9:18 AM


Wordswordsman writes:

A properly conducted poll of 20,000 Americans can easily represent the entire population of the US with high confidence and accuracy. If the sample size is increased for a large population, the improvement on confidence isn't significally improved enough to warrant the expense of taking larger samples than are customarily taken in polls, except in results of nearly 50-50 opinions from samples of only 5,000.
It seems counterintuitive to most people, but for large populations the confidence level is a function solely of sample size. For example, whether the total population is one million or a hundred million doesn't matter, a sample size of around 1750 will give you a confidence level of 99%.
Even though extremely small sample sizes yield high confidence levels, polling large populations is extremely difficult because you need to establish that the sample was representative of the total population. This is where increasing sample size is helpful, because it increases the probability that the sample is representative. For example, an instant poll conducted by a network after a presidential speech is highly unlikely to be representative not only because of the necessarily small sample size, but also because it is a sample of people who tend to be home in the evening and who answer "yes" to the question, "Would you be willing to answer a few questions?" Pollsters conduct background polls to correct for these factors, but you can see it quickly gets very complicated.
The way a poll is constructed also strongly influences the results. For example, you'll get a higher "yes" response to the question, "Do you support the current bill before Congress increasing automobile emission controls?" if you precede it with, "Do you think it's important to preserve the environment for your children and your children's children?"
Self-selection polls are meaningless. The polls at websites are an example of these types of polls.
And lastly and obviously, the number of people adhering to a viewpoint is not well correlated with the correctness of a viewpoint, particularly for large populations on obscure or complex topics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-13-2002 9:18 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 71 of 106 (19784)
10-13-2002 12:41 PM


You guys are having a very interesting discussion, but could I request that you tone down the personal comments? Thanks!
---------------
EvC Forum Administrator
[This message has been edited by Admin, 10-13-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Mammuthus, posted 10-14-2002 4:43 AM Admin has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 72 of 106 (19788)
10-13-2002 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Wordswordsman
10-13-2002 9:18 AM


Wordswordsman writes:

This is characteristic of discussion groups dominated by atheists.
The evolutionists on this board are atheists, agnostics, deists and theists. No one classification seems to dominate from what I can see.
The Meridian article by John P. Pratt about the September, 1999, Scientific American article on Scientists and Religion in America is misleading. The poll consisted of only two questions:
Do you believe in:
  1. A God in intellectual and affective communication with man...to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer?
  2. Personal immortality?
One respondent wrote, "Why such a narrow definition [of God]? I believe in God, but I don't believe that one can expect an answer to prayer." Another wrote, "I consider it quite possible to be a deeply religious person while rejecting belief in a personal God or in personal immortality."
So it's untrue when Pratt writes, "only 40% of scientists stated that they believed in God."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-13-2002 9:18 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 106 (19799)
10-13-2002 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Mammuthus
10-13-2002 11:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
WS:
It's a riot that he claims to be an anthropologist, or a person with some training in that field. I don't believe that claim, believing rather you are an armchair wannabe. I would suspect a person with training in that discipline would be fairly intelligent. Such a claim casts a dark curtain over the field should he be representative.
M: It's a riot that you are obtuse enough to indicate that I ever claimed to be an anthropologist. As for a wannabe, I am a successful molecular biologist with an appointment at a very famous museum which is more than you will ever be able to claim in your life. Your questioning my intelligence after making unsubstantiated claims about your speaking for god casts a dark curtain over the little sect of christianity you so desperately cling to.

Wordswordsman appears to have us inextricably confused. Much of this fillibuster of an ad hominem is about me, but is aimed at you. WS has trouble with reading comprehension.
I am the satan-worshipping atheist with the anthropology training.
quote:
WS:
One way of proving the ignorance demonstrated in your past few posts is the rejection out of obvious ignorance concerning statistics as applied to polls, sample size terminology, etc.
M: Interesting paragraph considering this is NOT what you stated previously and is not what I was responding to.

This is a reaction to another discussion WS and I had. Yet again, he is confused. I made the comment that I do not much trust poll results. I dropped the issue to keep on topic. Apparently WS didn't get it off his chest. I see that Percy has posted a pretty good synopsis of the trouble with surveys.
quote:
WS:
In that vast expanse lies what people need to know to be persuaded evolution is a farce, a cult religion. That is why I've diagnosed you as spacially agorophobic.

You diagnosed me agorophobic.
quote:
WS:
A search of several archeology sites brings up thousands of articles that make you look foolish. Most scientists believe archeologists are legitimate scientists, even those who specialize in Bible archeology. It is apparent, though, that most atheists disagree, believing they are too biased. What they don't realizew is that many of those people choose that specialty to attempt to prove the biblical record is inaccurate. They have not been very convincing, usually directly neutralized by other digs and conclusions from data. The problems in that field come not from the scientists uncovering the past, but other related scholars who misuse the results. Even some Isreali Jewish scholars have gone on record as denying the biblical record, suggesting the data allows Israel no rights to their land. They have been adequately neutralized by high profile archeologists, but damage was done. The field is highly politicized, but the facts remain the facts, the data is there, can't be ignored. Interpretations of the facts are biased.
M: List names, institutes, citations for at least 50 cases...you have dodged this repeatedly.

This, I suspect, is also aimed at me. Interesting that out of thousands of references he's posted none-- Oh, except for those irrelevant ones about the classical Greeks meant to prove that the Isrealites 3500 years previously believed in a spherical earth.
quote:
M: LOL! It is an honor to raise the ire of a fundie...it surly means I am doing something right
Oh yes it is....
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Mammuthus, posted 10-13-2002 11:59 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 74 of 106 (19828)
10-14-2002 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Admin
10-13-2002 12:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Admin:
You guys are having a very interesting discussion, but could I request that you tone down the personal comments? Thanks!
---------------
EvC Forum Administrator
[This message has been edited by Admin, 10-13-2002]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorry about that...I will try to tone it down on my side.
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Admin, posted 10-13-2002 12:41 PM Admin has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 75 of 106 (19838)
10-14-2002 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Wordswordsman
10-13-2002 9:18 AM


What an interesting post. I hope that if you ever get around to actually discussing the scientific evidence for creationism, as you have indicated you are interested in doing at some point, you will tone down the rhetoric a bit. Otherwise it's likely to be a very short conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-13-2002 9:18 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by nos482, posted 10-14-2002 8:18 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024