Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush promotes ID
Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 31 of 195 (229258)
08-03-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by CK
08-03-2005 2:24 PM


Re: More unsupported science bashing
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by CK, posted 08-03-2005 2:24 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by CK, posted 08-03-2005 2:56 PM Tal has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 32 of 195 (229264)
08-03-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tal
08-03-2005 2:13 PM


Re: Should ID be censored?
Tal writes:
That's better than (dirtdidit) followed by a very short exam (Answer = dirtdidit).
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tal, posted 08-03-2005 2:13 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 3:35 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 33 of 195 (229266)
08-03-2005 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tal
08-03-2005 2:42 PM


Tal - Back or retract
No you made a very specific statement:
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tal, posted 08-03-2005 2:42 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2005 3:08 PM CK has not replied
 Message 37 by Tal, posted 08-03-2005 3:25 PM CK has replied
 Message 70 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 12:33 AM CK has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 34 of 195 (229269)
08-03-2005 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
08-03-2005 10:58 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 08-03-2005 10:58 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Monk, posted 08-03-2005 3:43 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 195 (229274)
08-03-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by CK
08-03-2005 2:56 PM


Re: Tal - Back or retract
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by CK, posted 08-03-2005 2:56 PM CK has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 36 of 195 (229282)
08-03-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mick
08-03-2005 11:57 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mick, posted 08-03-2005 11:57 AM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Brad McFall, posted 08-03-2005 6:53 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 37 of 195 (229286)
08-03-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by CK
08-03-2005 2:56 PM


Re: Tal - Back or retract
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by CK, posted 08-03-2005 2:56 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by CK, posted 08-03-2005 3:38 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 41 by Rahvin, posted 08-03-2005 3:39 PM Tal has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 38 of 195 (229291)
08-03-2005 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tal
08-03-2005 1:41 PM


Re: Should ID be censored?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 08-03-2005 1:41 PM Tal has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 39 of 195 (229294)
08-03-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by FliesOnly
08-03-2005 2:48 PM


Re: Should ID be censored?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by FliesOnly, posted 08-03-2005 2:48 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 40 of 195 (229299)
08-03-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tal
08-03-2005 3:25 PM


Re: Tal - Back or retract
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?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tal, posted 08-03-2005 3:25 PM Tal has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 41 of 195 (229301)
08-03-2005 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tal
08-03-2005 3:25 PM


Re: Tal - Back or retract
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tal, posted 08-03-2005 3:25 PM Tal has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 42 of 195 (229305)
08-03-2005 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Brad McFall
08-03-2005 2:59 PM


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:
Now President Bush told the reporters that he favored an exposition of intelligent design so, "people can understand what the debate is about". It seems logical to me. But a Knight-Ridder reporter named Ron Hutchinson spun it this way.
"Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools."
Well, I didn't hear anything about equal standing for the president. Of course, the reporter spun the story that way to make it seem like Mr. Bush is a fanatic under the spell of religious zealots. That's what some in the press do all day long. ----Bill O’Reilly
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:
Transcript of the roundtable interview of President Bush by reporters from Texas newspapers on August 1, 2005, in the Roosevelt Room.
REPORTER: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?
PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
REPORTER: Both sides should be properly taught?
PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.
REPORTER: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.
Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 08-03-2005 2:59 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 08-03-2005 3:54 PM Monk has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 195 (229314)
08-03-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Monk
08-03-2005 3:43 PM


I certainly would agree that ID should be taught...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Monk, posted 08-03-2005 3:43 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Monk, posted 08-03-2005 4:31 PM jar has replied
 Message 66 by Omnivorous, posted 08-03-2005 10:16 PM jar has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 44 of 195 (229319)
08-03-2005 3:59 PM


evolutionist hypocrisy
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2005 4:11 PM randman has replied
 Message 46 by Yaro, posted 08-03-2005 4:12 PM randman has replied
 Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 08-03-2005 4:23 PM randman has replied
 Message 68 by Thor, posted 08-03-2005 11:08 PM randman has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 195 (229327)
08-03-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by randman
08-03-2005 3:59 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 3:59 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 4:19 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024