Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush promotes ID
Glordag2
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 195 (230941)
08-08-2005 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by randman
08-08-2005 10:53 AM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
quote:
It appears to me, judging by the hysterial reaction and intellectual jihad against the publisher that dares publish an ID article last summer, that the message is clear among the evos. You publish an ID paper and your career will be threatened and in jeopardy.
You have mentioned this occurance several times, yet you have failed to present information about it even when several members have questioned whether or not it happened. Would you care to at least inform us of who this publisher was, what he tried to publish, and in which journal it was refused? A simple link would do just fine. Or at least a name, so that we might look it up ourselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by randman, posted 08-08-2005 10:53 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Clark, posted 08-08-2005 11:12 AM Glordag2 has replied

  
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 195 (230944)
08-08-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Glordag2
08-08-2005 11:10 AM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
Meyer, Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239.
Page not found · GitHub Pages

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Glordag2, posted 08-08-2005 11:10 AM Glordag2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Glordag2, posted 08-08-2005 11:13 AM Clark has not replied

  
Glordag2
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 195 (230945)
08-08-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Clark
08-08-2005 11:12 AM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
*nod* Thanks. Now it's time for me to research (:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Clark, posted 08-08-2005 11:12 AM Clark has not replied

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


Message 139 of 195 (231051)
08-08-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by randman
08-08-2005 10:53 AM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
randman writes:
Could it not be that massively higher numbers of transitional fossils are indeed predicted, and thus the numbers of theorized transitionals, taken as a whole, would be strong evidence against ToE.
In fact, no, that is not the prediction. Fossils of any kind are rare because fossilation itself is a relatively rare event. Most animals and plants decompose completely when they die. When we do have a fossil it is usually only part of the organism - in the case of animals, typically the skeleton, exoskeleton or shell. Soft body parts are hardly ever fossilized. So if a change occured there it wouldn't even be recorded. In spite of that, there are many transitional fossils. Here is a link that summerizes the transitional fossils if you are interested.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by randman, posted 08-08-2005 10:53 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Tal, posted 08-09-2005 10:07 AM deerbreh has replied

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


Message 140 of 195 (231298)
08-09-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by deerbreh
08-08-2005 2:20 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
Fossils of any kind are rare because fossilation itself is a relatively rare event.
Flood?

"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 139 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2005 2:20 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by deerbreh, posted 08-09-2005 10:31 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 142 by FliesOnly, posted 08-09-2005 10:33 AM Tal has not replied

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


Message 141 of 195 (231307)
08-09-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Tal
08-09-2005 10:07 AM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
deerbreh writes:
Fossils of any kind are rare because fossilation itself is a relatively rare event.
Tal writes:
Flood?
Is that a question? I don't understand the point you are making.
I presume you are pointing out that fossils are formed in sediments deposited by flooding but nevertheless, it is still true that fossilation is a relatively rare event. Many animals and plants buried in sediment still do not fossilize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Tal, posted 08-09-2005 10:07 AM Tal has not replied

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


Message 142 of 195 (231310)
08-09-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Tal
08-09-2005 10:07 AM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
Tal writes:
Flood?
I'll bite...WTF are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Tal, posted 08-09-2005 10:07 AM Tal has not replied

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


Message 143 of 195 (232776)
08-12-2005 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Rahvin
08-04-2005 12:25 PM


Re: My op
Ned
EvC Forum: Evolution vs Intelligent Design
has just recently asked Highlander to consider a re-write INTO one of the existing threads on ID. I dont know if this is one Nosy had without a sneeze, but I'll bring it back here as the "logical" link refers to Dempski's writ
http://www.designinference.com/
on Bush
PDF.
I have had a few things to say already inter thread alia but there is one other thing I can say relative to the a link Highlander provided and at the time I left off discussing the reproductive continuum that could be infinitesimal. I have in no way thought if this structure better fits creationism or ID if not only evc etc so...
This is what I have additionally to say about an observation of translation in space and form-making, that indeed iT DOES not require "pre-existing information setTO "'function'" but only SORTING of 1-dimensional symmetry of ALTERNATIVE ALLELES that are statistically distributed across generations in fact. Because Dembski does refer to prior earth observer positions rather than paraphyly it is not clear that he has the correct information transfer between zygotes biologically and yet he distances ID from creationsim. THIS MEANS it seems most logically to me, that, the events that vital statistics MIGHT reveal MUST be a part of the "science" of ID but where is the inference that the design is not a natural product of artifical selections (at engineerable control of dominance) rather than a non-reducible complexity? If this is not discussed there MUST be a probablism UNLESS he is mistken that creationism IS NOT at odds with ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2005 12:25 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 144 of 195 (233836)
08-16-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Monk
08-03-2005 1:08 PM


Jerry Coyne tells it like it is
Hi monk,
My reply was not meant to be glib. It is the reply I would give to a student who brings up religious questions in a science class. I have given some thought to what I would do in that situation, and my opinion is largely due to Jerry Coyne's comment in Nature (the text of which I post below)
quote:
In the Editorial "Dealing with design" (Nature 434, 1053; 2005), Nature claims that scientists have not dealt effectively with the threat to evolutionary biology posed by 'intelligent design' (ID) creationism. Rather than ignoring, dismissing or attacking ID, scientists should, the editors suggest, learn how religious people can come to terms with science, and teach these methods of accommodation in the classroom. The goal of science education should thus be "to point to options other than ID for reconciling science and belief". In this way, students' faith will not be challenged by scientific truth, and evolution will triumph.
This suggestion is misguided: the science classroom is the wrong place to teach students how to reconcile science and religion. For one thing, many scientists deem such a reconciliation impossible because faith and science are two mutually exclusive ways of looking at the world. For such scientists, Nature apparently prescribes hypocrisy. The real business of science teachers is to teach science, not to help students shore up worldviews that crumble when they learn science. And ID creationism is not science, despite the editors' suggestion that ID "tries to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature". Rather, advocates of ID pretend to use scientific methods to support their religious preconceptions. It has no more place in the biology classroom than geocentrism has in the astronomy curriculum.
Scientists are of course free (some would say duty-bound) to fight ID outside the classroom, or to harmonize religion with science. But students who cannot handle scientific challenges to their faith should seek guidance from a theologian, not a scientist. Scientists should never have to apologize for teaching science.
This message has been edited by mick, 08-16-2005 07:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Monk, posted 08-03-2005 1:08 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by arachnophilia, posted 08-16-2005 7:44 PM mick has not replied
 Message 146 by Monk, posted 08-16-2005 10:27 PM mick has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 145 of 195 (233839)
08-16-2005 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by mick
08-16-2005 7:39 PM


Re: Jerry Coyne tells it like it is
amen!

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by mick, posted 08-16-2005 7:39 PM mick has not replied

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


Message 146 of 195 (233883)
08-16-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by mick
08-16-2005 7:39 PM


Re: Jerry Coyne tells it like it is
Hi mick,
I couldn't determine from the article whether Coyne was speaking of a high school biology class or at the college level. If at the college level, I would agree that a teacher could just tell a student "go talk to your preacher" and end it there. But as I've said up thread, in high school, I believe a brief discussion is warranted. Not to teach ID as Bush has suggested, but to reiterate through discussion that ID and creationism are not science. I draw a distinction between a "discussion" and "teaching".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by mick, posted 08-16-2005 7:39 PM mick has not replied

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


Message 147 of 195 (233944)
08-17-2005 7:09 AM


On a lighter note...Dean says No to ID
Did anyone else watch "Face the Nation" this past Sunday? Howard Dean was the guest, and among the other valid points he made, he addressed a question about teaching ID in school. He said flat out that it is not science and in no way belongs in a science classroom. He went on a bit about how it would affect our science curriculum and the potential consequences of looking like a nation of scientific buffoons (my words, not his). All it all, it was nice to see a politician stand up for once and say, without hesitation, that ID/creationism is NOT science...that it's purely a religious endeavor and should be kept out of our science classrooms.
Go Howard...give em hell!

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Tal, posted 08-17-2005 8:51 AM FliesOnly has not replied

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


Message 148 of 195 (233972)
08-17-2005 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by FliesOnly
08-17-2005 7:09 AM


Re: On a lighter note...Dean says No to ID
Evolution is a religion as a well. One that believes a dog can produce a non-dog (despite zero evidence) and that a dog came from a rock 4.6 billion years agao (despite zero evidence).
No science there.
BTW, please keep backing Howard Dean. Us conservatives love him.
YEEEAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by FliesOnly, posted 08-17-2005 7:09 AM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by kjsimons, posted 08-17-2005 8:56 AM Tal has replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 149 of 195 (233975)
08-17-2005 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Tal
08-17-2005 8:51 AM


Re: On a lighter note...Dean says No to ID
One that believes a dog can produce a non-dog (despite zero evidence) and that a dog came from a rock 4.6 billion years agao (despite zero evidence).
Well it's a good thing that that's not what evolution say then isn't it? Really Tal, if you are going to make snide remarks about Evolution, you should have at least a basic understanding of what it is. You are only displaying your ignorance about evolution with your post.
This message has been edited by kjsimons, 08-17-2005 08:57 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Tal, posted 08-17-2005 8:51 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Tal, posted 08-17-2005 9:11 AM kjsimons has replied

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


Message 150 of 195 (233980)
08-17-2005 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by kjsimons
08-17-2005 8:56 AM


Re: On a lighter note...Dean says No to ID
Well it's a good thing that that's not what evolution say then isn't it?
That is EXACTLY what evolution says.

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by kjsimons, posted 08-17-2005 8:56 AM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by kjsimons, posted 08-17-2005 9:29 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 152 by FliesOnly, posted 08-17-2005 9:30 AM Tal 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