|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bush promotes ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5703 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
So you would rather me start new topics in there that have already been covered? My views have been covered by others in most cases, and I have nothing constructive to add to them. I do read them regularly. I would think you would give me kudos for not repeating what has alredy been said instead of being an ass.
Again, if I have anything to add, I will. This message has been edited by Tal, 08-03-2005 02:51 PM "Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?" --Ann Coulter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4171 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Tal writes: Ahhh...but you see, we in science never, ever make this claim, where as my earlier response (Goddidit) IS a claim made by creationists and IDists. It's the entire basis of their (your) argument. That's better than (dirtdidit) followed by a very short exam (Answer = dirtdidit). I do, however, look forward to you explaining exactly how a lesson plan for teaching ID would look. Sorry, but I'm just giddy with excitement over this prospect, so let me at least ask this: Will you be proposing that it be taught in a science class room?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
No you made a very specific statement:
quote: I want you to either back or retract that statement. It seems to me you like many a creationist want to hang out in the coffee shop where you cannot get called on this line of crap. so it's really simple if you honestly believe that and think you can support it - get over to the science forums and do so. A lack of response speaks for itself. so BACK or RETRACT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
FACTOR's common ground
Bill O'Reilly had Gross from Va last nite factorized. Indeed it seems relevant to Bush's. Bill said Gross was netting a loss of the audience. This is what the student can judge.I did. The better indeed can gross with evcers that ID has not produced a big alternative but that was not Bill or GW's points it seems true to me but false to Gross.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Now, now, Charles.
I think that Tal's post pretty much sums up the whole ID issue. "I [note the first person pronoun] cannot conceive how such a thing is possible. Therefore, there we must consider that a Magical Skyman is responsible for it." But I do agree with you; it would be nice to see Tal in the science forums.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2919 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Bauer writes: With the president endorsing it, at the very least it makes Americans who have that position more respectable It must be logical fallacy day. This is an exquisite example of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The belief in ID is respectable because a famous person (as opposed to a scientist known for his careful research) believes it. Kind of like thinking that the opinions of famous ball players (or actors) on politics are respectable not because they know something about politics but because they are famous ballplayers/actors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5703 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
quote: I will, but not at your convenience. "Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?" --Ann Coulter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2919 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Tal writes: Fish magically turning into birds is pretty superstitious IMO. Indeed it is. Of course the TOE makes no such claim. So that makes your argument a strawman, doesn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2919 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
FliesOnly writes: Will you be proposing that it (ID) be taught in a science class room? Where else would you have anatomically correct models for teaching the concepts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
You have been a member for quite a while, you know how the system works here. You have made a claim - someone has asked you to support that claim.
all it takes is the following magical words: I am unable/unwilling to support this claim at the present moment This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 03-Aug-2005 03:41 PM "Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think that cocaine was delivered to George W Bush?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
nd that's where we differ. I believe evolution is bad science. It is the most widely excepted theory based on the least amount of evidence (none). Fish magically turning into birds is pretty superstitious IMO. That's probably the biggest strawman that I've ever seen. Evolution doesn't claim that fish magically turned into birds. Evolution is a description of an observable mechanism. Evolution describes the gradual change in forms of life over time through small random changes guided by selection. We can easily see this mechanism today, all around us. We simply iterate this mechanism backwards in time, assuming that it has always worked the way it works today (as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise). Similarly, we see the motion of the planets around the sun, and extrapolate that they have always moved in the same orbital patterns since they first formed Evolution says nothing about a fish turning into a bird. All it does is describe the mechanism that causes changes to forms of life over time. That mechanism is observable fact. "Speciation" is simply many of these tiny changes adding up over many generations, until the descendant is widely different from the ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3950 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I usually agree with O’Reilly, but in this case, his defense of the President was not accurate. In the article, O’Reilly said:
quote: Bush didn’t say equal standing for ID per se, but he did agree with the reporters question who asked if ID should be taught in school. That’s unfortunate and I disagree with it. Here’s part of the transcript:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
and would go so far as to suggest that it should be taught in the science classes. Very few subjects would be a better medium to show how totally lacking in foundation a subject can be. ID and Creationism (the classic Biblical kind) are great examples of the worst types of pseudoscience. By looking at them it might help students understand the difference between science and pseudoscience. The old examples of the snake-oil salesman are now dated, many if not most students today have never experienced either the medicine man or the carny barker. ID and Classic Biblical Creationism would be better examples of hucksterism as opposed to science and would be ones the kids could actually observe in action.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I keep hearing evolutionist claim ID is not science, but never back up the claim.
I hear evolutionists say IDers don't do real science, but they do in fact. It's not that they aren't doing credible science. It's that evolutionists don't like it. I hear evolutionists demand why don't they publish in peer-reviewed evolutionist journals, and when someone does, they say it should never have been published and try to ruin the editor's career that published. All this makes me think evolutionists are a bunch of hypocrites afraid to allow for honest assessment of the facts and debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
IDers may do science, but it's usually not related to ID. In fact, we keep asking for an example of ID science, but nothing is ever presented.
-
quote: The only example that remotely resembles this scenario involved a review paper, not a research paper; the paper was not submitted to the usual peer review process (since the paper was a review paper, not a research paper); and I seem to remember that the acceptance procedure was done contrary to the usual practice at that journal. But maybe you are thinking of a different example. It's hard to tell, since, as usual you are making a statement without actually supplying any details.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024