Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello
Eilidh
Junior Member (Idle past 6127 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 06-11-2007


Message 16 of 34 (405358)
06-12-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Doddy
06-11-2007 8:14 PM


Re: Welcome Welcome Welcome
Hi, Well, what a flood of questions. That's good, I like an active site.
Hmm, where to start? First let me say, although I'm no thicko, I'm no brilliant sholar either. However, I doubt if anything I had to say in defence of "Creationism" would hold any importance to any of you.
I believe in a young earth because it makes more sense to me than any of the explanations science has came up with.
I have watched debate after debate between Mr J McKay and some of the top scientist in the world. So far, non of them have held a candle to Mr McKay. I urge you to listen to a few of his discs.
I don't intend to get into anything confrontational, it's not my style. I'm happy with what I believe, and trust you are too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Doddy, posted 06-11-2007 8:14 PM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jazzns, posted 06-12-2007 1:55 PM Eilidh has replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2007 3:16 PM Eilidh has not replied
 Message 21 by mark24, posted 06-12-2007 3:40 PM Eilidh has not replied
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 06-12-2007 3:54 PM Eilidh has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 17 of 34 (405370)
06-12-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Eilidh
06-12-2007 12:57 PM


Re: Welcome Welcome Welcome
I think it is good that you started out with a personal introduction. Many time creationists come in here and just simply start asserting things and calling people names. In return they usually get called a lot of names back and end up leaving with a bad taste everyone's mouth. That seems to have the effect of hardening a lot of folks who "live" in these parts so I hope you can join the discussion with some thick skin if you care to stick around awhile.
Which brings me to a point I want to discuss with you. You said:
I don't intend to get into anything confrontational, it's not my style. I'm happy with what I believe, and trust you are too.
I think it is important to realize that this is a debate forum. Most people who stick around here do so because they want to challange their beliefs and the beliefs of others. Confrontation is expected and often welcomed. If you do not wish to have your beliefs challanged, then I don't know how comfortable you will be here once you decide to venture out of this introduction thread.
If you care to defend a young earth creationist position, people ARE going to call you ignorant. This usually has a negative effect on our creationist peers and visitors but I think it is important for people to have an effective debate to accept this kind of criticism.
Most people are ignorant of most things. If the tables are turned an a young earth creationists should call me ignorant, I personally would want to know what I am supposidly ignorant of. Instead a lot of people are offended by that and I think it leads to a lot of cat fighting instead of constructive discussion.
So my advice to you would be to come help other people learn what they might be ignorant of and be willing to accept what you might be ignorant of yourself. There are some 'softer' spoken people on this site who are working scientists who have very interesting things to teach if you stick around long enough, ask the right questions, and wade through the inevitable poo flinging that happens on ALL internet forums.
I personally have learned more at this forum then I would have ever left to my own devices and opportunites. I hope you will too.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Eilidh, posted 06-12-2007 12:57 PM Eilidh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Eilidh, posted 06-12-2007 2:02 PM Jazzns has replied

Eilidh
Junior Member (Idle past 6127 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 06-11-2007


Message 18 of 34 (405375)
06-12-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jazzns
06-12-2007 1:55 PM


Re: Welcome Welcome Welcome
Thanks Jazzns, what a nice reply. I do indeed intend to stick around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jazzns, posted 06-12-2007 1:55 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 06-12-2007 2:20 PM Eilidh has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 19 of 34 (405382)
06-12-2007 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Eilidh
06-12-2007 2:02 PM


Re: Welcome Welcome Welcome
Yea no problem. You seem like a nice guy/gal.
I should also mention now that I am thinking of it. This forum also has a mode where you can debate someone 1 on 1 (called Great Debates) on a particular topic. It can even be scored by moderators or just be casual.
The effect of these 1 on 1 debates is that you don't get "pile on". Because the majority of people here are no creationists, what sometimes happens is that a new person like yourself will be overwhelmed with response from as many as 10 people. Some people with a lot of time and stamina can handle and even enjoy that much attention. For some people it can be frustrating.
I know RAZD has been chomping at the bit for an opponent. I also enjoy a good 1 on 1 and like to think that I am pretty agreeable although I have been known to say some harsh things when I am frusrated.
Pick a topic you want to discuss. ID, the age of the earth, the flood, evolution, religion, morality, etc and invite someone you are interested in having a dialog with. There is nothing technical you need to do. Just start a topic in the PNT forum and request a Great Debate. The moderators will move it to the GD forum and your "opponent" can just join on in.
THe other thing to remember is that, even though sometimes this site is very active, it doesn't have to be like a chat room. People may want you to hurry and respond to their posts but I am not alone in saying tha I would rather someone take the time to respond later and have put a lot of thought into their reply than just "shoot from the hip" so to speak.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Eilidh, posted 06-12-2007 2:02 PM Eilidh has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 34 (405391)
06-12-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Eilidh
06-12-2007 12:57 PM


Re: Welcome Welcome Welcome
I believe in a young earth because it makes more sense to me than any of the explanations science has came up with.
If you have been getting your ideas of science from YECs, you have no idea what explanations science has come up with, and little idea of the data which needs to be explained, most of which, for obvious reasons, they conceal.
I have watched debate after debate between Mr J McKay and some of the top scientist in the world.
Who?
So far, non of them have held a candle to Mr McKay.
What did he give them, the old Gish Gallop?
He should come here, we'd teach him a thing or two.
I urge you to listen to a few of his discs.
And I strongly urge you to read a geology textbook, also, and this is important, to find out what the theory of evolution is.
Mr MacKay's website is filled with blunders, I see no hope of his discs being any better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Eilidh, posted 06-12-2007 12:57 PM Eilidh has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 21 of 34 (405397)
06-12-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Eilidh
06-12-2007 12:57 PM


Re: Welcome Welcome Welcome
Eilidh,
I believe in a young earth because it makes more sense to me than any of the explanations science has came up with.
YEC is utterly unsubstantiated. There isn't a single piece of evidence that supports the biblical 6,000 year timeline. Not one.
Evidence that scuppers the YEC timeline is legion.
Old earth dates ~ 4.5 bya are corroborated by more than one line of evidence.
How on earth can you say YEC "makes more sense" when this is the case?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Eilidh, posted 06-12-2007 12:57 PM Eilidh has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 34 (405401)
06-12-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Eilidh
06-12-2007 12:57 PM


A place to start
If you do want to discuss and debate issues you find interesting (and I'd think that anything you believe or anything you know is controversial would be an interesting debate topic *) you could use:
have watched debate after debate between Mr J McKay and some of the top scientist in the world. So far, non of them have held a candle to Mr McKay. I urge you to listen to a few of his discs.
as a place to start.
What is correct has nothing to do with how much fun someone is when speaking or what tricky debate tactics they use. It is the facts they use and reasoning they do that counts. If you think Mr. J McKay has a strong case to make you can present the parts you like best in threads focussed on them.
You might learn something about the quality of information you have been given. But learning is always a bit of a painful process -- at a minimum you have to think and that makes my head hurt.
As I noted earlier; it's your choice. People here will not lie to you and if they are mistaken others will jump on them. Those that hang around here will discuss and argue over almost any darned thing. They seem to be a bit addicted to it.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed quote box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Eilidh, posted 06-12-2007 12:57 PM Eilidh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Eilidh, posted 06-13-2007 4:41 AM NosyNed has not replied

Eilidh
Junior Member (Idle past 6127 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 06-11-2007


Message 23 of 34 (405476)
06-13-2007 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by NosyNed
06-12-2007 3:54 PM


Re: A place to start
Dr. Adequate:
You have said twice now, that Mr McKay's site is full of blunders.
Could you please write down the blunders you see, so that I can check them all out for myself.
I maybe should also tell you, that the same Mr McKay was a university lecturer of Evolution for many years, before coming to the conclusion that the evidence he was finding in the fossils, did not often tally up with the findings of the scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 06-12-2007 3:54 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Wounded King, posted 06-13-2007 5:17 AM Eilidh has not replied
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2007 5:18 PM Eilidh has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 24 of 34 (405481)
06-13-2007 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Eilidh
06-13-2007 4:41 AM


Re: A place to start
Hi Eilidh,
Nice to meet another fellow Scot on the boards. The resume for John Mackay on the Creation research UK site would appear to contradict your claim that...
I maybe should also tell you, that the same Mr McKay was a university lecturer of Evolution for many years
They give his experience as...
John Mackay was for many years a science teacher in both state and private secondary education systems in Queensland, Australia. He also lectured in Geology at Tertiary level for Technical Education
So rather than a university lecturer of Evolution he lectured on Geology at the equivalent of a Technical college.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Eilidh, posted 06-13-2007 4:41 AM Eilidh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Doddy, posted 06-13-2007 5:26 AM Wounded King has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 25 of 34 (405482)
06-13-2007 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Wounded King
06-13-2007 5:17 AM


Re: A place to start
Aww, crap. Like Ken Ham, he went to my university
His science degree was obtained at the University of Queensland (Australia).
That's not to say that we don't get taught evolution properly - neither Mackay nor Ham studied evolutionary biology, but earth science and education (Ken Ham got his science degree in ecology at the nearby Queensland Institute of Technology) respectively.
But it does make you wonder - perhaps the creationists I debate on campus will one day become creation 'scientists'?

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Wounded King, posted 06-13-2007 5:17 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Eilidh, posted 06-13-2007 6:28 AM Doddy has not replied

Eilidh
Junior Member (Idle past 6127 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 06-11-2007


Message 26 of 34 (405490)
06-13-2007 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Doddy
06-13-2007 5:26 AM


Re: A place to start
Oh sorry, that will be my fault then. I thought it was the same thing.
I must read that part of his site, I've never really paid much interest into his past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Doddy, posted 06-13-2007 5:26 AM Doddy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 34 (405562)
06-13-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Eilidh
06-13-2007 4:41 AM


John Mackay
You have said twice now, that Mr McKay's site is full of blunders.
Could you please write down the blunders you see, so that I can check them all out for myself.
Hokay. I've confined myself to the pages which you get to from his "Projects" section of the website, there's plenty to be getting on with. I have (I think) responded to every page which has a science-related claim, so you can see I'm not cherry-picking: this is the best he can do. Links are supplied so that you can see the quotations in context if you wish.
---
* Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
"The fossils on display include some spectacular examples of rapidly buried catastrophic fossils such as this crab buried in mid step. No need for millions of years here."
He doesn't say why this is a "catastrophic fossil" rather than, say, just another dead crab. It does not take a catastrophe to cover a dead crab with sediment, this happens all the time. He doesn't say why he thinks it was "rapidly buried", or what significance he thinks this has. He doesn't exactly say why he thinks this is a challenge to evolution, but his remark "No need for millions of years here" suggests that he thinks that in conventional geology, the covering of organisms with sediment should take millions of years. If this is not what he thinks, what the heck is he talking about? There is indeed "no need for millions of years" to cover a dead crab with sediment. Geologists are well aware of this.
* Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
"The limestone is full of sea creatures, so finding thousands of land plants in the limestone proves it is a flood deposit."
How he identified that Y-shaped thing as a land plant is beyond me. If he knows its a land plant, couldn't he also have a stab at the genus, maybe? But that's by-the-by. What is more interesting is that he claims it's a flood deposit. Well, either that or land plants can get into the sea by means other than a magic flood, which they can.
He's darn tootin', though, when he says that limestone is "full of sea creatures". In fact, limestone is composed mainly of the shells of sea creatures, and thinking about this fact and the thickness of limestone deposits should be enough to convince anyone that limestone was not deposited in a single event.
* Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
"So far results show the fossil plants in Pennysylvania and those in Tennessee have been laid by flood currents going in the same direction, SW - NE."
Do we get data? No. Do we get an explanation of why "flood currents" should orient trees in the same direction? No. Is this what floods normally do? I think not. If "currents" have this effect, is there any reason why they should be the currents of a magic universal flood 4000 years ago? None whatsoever. Currents exist in the real world, just like land plants being washed out to sea and dead crabs. No magic flood is required.
* Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
"FABULOUS NEW FOSSIL TREE FOUND, WITH LEAVES still attached as John Mackay excavates giant polystrate tassel fern in Cumberland Plateau rocks Tennessee USA. Nothing could be a better example of rapid fossilization."
And this one really made my jaw drop. In the real world, sedimentary strata tend to be deposited annually. The very existence of strata in the supposed "flood deposits" blows the whole myth wide open. Why he thinks this is evidence of rapid fossilisation beats me; there is nothing here to show how fast the tree fossilized, only how slowly it was buried.
At least this is different from the usual YEC mistake of supposing that each stratum represents a million years in real geology, but on the other hand he doesn't say what mistake he's making. How can a polystrate tree be evidence of "rapid fossilization"? He doesn't explain. I feel like I'm trying to punch a fog.
* Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
"This brings out a real weakness in evolution - selecting something is not the same as making something. Natural selection (or artificial selection) can only choose from the orchids that already exist."
This is a classic creationist mix-up: they complain that natural selection can't do what is in fact done by mutation, and that mutation can't do what is in fact done by natural selection.
If I was a creationist, and I wanted to attack the theory of evolution, I'd find out what it said and attack that. It isn't a "real weakness in evolution" that natural selection only selects. That's exactly what every biologist says it does. Hence the term "natural selection". Sheesh. He continues:
"The June conference in Nottingham UK, saw the first results of many years of our orchid research which glorify God as Creator and expose evolution as fraud."
Yup, he said it. A fraud. A fraud, apparently, which cuts across nations, ideologies, colors and creeds. A fraud involving hundreds of thousands of people. Let's have a little word from some of the fraudsters:
"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)."
Fraudsters!
And there's a reason why a certain sort of person has to think that his opponents are lying, rather then merely wrong. It's 'cos they know more about the subject of his obsession than he does. For example, the institutions which signed up to the following statement are composed of people who are well aware of the relevant facts:
"Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy."
--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
He has to choose between three propositions: he's wrong, they don't know what they're talking about --- or they're lying. The third option reduces cognitive dissonance but requires him to believe in a huge and completely pointless international multicultural ecumenical conspiracy.
Oh, and if his "orchid project" has "revealed evolution as a fraud", shouldn't he tell us how? I mean, if I was a creationist, and I had evidence that evolution was a fraud, I'd publish. As it is, I can't see how on earth growing orchids for a few years can prove evolution a fraud, or why someone hasn't done it before, since Mr Mackay is not the first person to grow orchids. I bet a few scientists have cultivated them too.
* Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
"This giant fossil roo is not only a reminder that the climate of the Darling Downs was once better, being both warmer and wetter, and having much more lush vegetation, but that the history of kangaroos is the opposite of evolution."
What the heck does he think the theory of evolution is? "Big creatures don't go extinct"? "Climate change doesn't happen"? "Creatures today are bigger than they used to be"? What? He doesn't say what he thinks the theory of evolution is, and remarks like this make me wonder if he knows.
* Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
"We have the biggest research file in the world on vertical fossil trees (polystrate). These have made a remarkable impact, in universities around the world where we use them to show that millions of years of evolution is not in the rocks. The tree (right) which we exposed on our 2002 Blue Mountains coal field trip is just one more nail in the coffin of those who insist the evidence points to evolution and millions of years."
More stuff about polystrate fossils. Again, he doesn't say what mistake he's making. He just assumes it's been made. How does the gradual burial of a tree show that "millions of years of evolution is not in the rocks".
Science does not consist of saying what you want to hear in a confident tone of voice. If he really believes that this is evidence for a magic flood, he should tell us why.
* Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
"The Wollemi pine is one of the latest discoveries to join the ranks of “living fossils”. The evidence that the Wollemi pine has not evolved ... Soon after its discovery it was noticed that the leaves and stems of the Wollemi pine are almost identical to a fossil auricarian pine Agathis"
No, that's evidence that the Wollemi pine hasn't done much evolving recently. A bit, to be sure, since Agathis and Wollemia are different genera. (Agathis is also known from living forms, so why he points out its resemblance to a fossil Agathis is slightly baffling.) He continues:
"These fossils contain catastrophically buried specimens of well preserved fossil plants and fishes."
Again, if he has some method of distinguishing "catastrophic burial" from just plain ol' burial, he doesn't say what it is.
* Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
"How good is your maths - Wollemi pine are still here - Dinosaurs are gone. Doesn't it seem as if extinction is the real history of life - then, just as now - and not evolution."
This made me chuckle with its sheer inanity. It's as though he said:
"How good is your maths - Jack is still alive - Fred is dead. Doesn't it seem as if death is the real history of the human race - then, just as now - and not birth."
It's idiotic.
---
Summary
* He makes totally unsupported assertions. He just points at stuff and says it proves him right. He doesn't say why it proves him right. He points at things which we know can happen perfectly naturally, such as dead crabs, and claims them as evidence for a supernatural event.
* He gets all excited about bits of the fossil record which appear to be consistent with a magic flood (or, in every single case, with a non-magic flood, or a non-magic non-flood). He should ask himself why. If his beliefs are right, the whole of the fossil record would testify to a magic flood. Every bit of it ever discovered. Which would make one wonder why geologists abandoned the notion hundred of years ago, and why studying geology is still making YECs abandon YEC to this day.
* He doesn't seem to know what the theory of evolution is. This is an enormous disadvatage to someone who wants to disprove the theory of evolution. On this other hand, it's a huge advantage to someone who wants to think that he's disproved the theory of evolution.
* With no more than this nonsense on his side, he is still capable of thinking that all the scientists who disagree with him are comitting fraud. Does it not seem to you that a man might have an honest reason for not thinking that a dead crab is evidence of a supernatural event?
I maybe should also tell you, that the same Mr McKay was a university lecturer of Evolution for many years ...
Or maybe you shouldn't, since he wasn't.
... before coming to the conclusion that the evidence he was finding in the fossils, did not often tally up with the findings of the scientists.
Having seen the majestic profundity of the thought processes by which he reached this conclusion, and having had the opportunity to compare this with the scientific method, my money is still on the scientists.
Which way would you bet? On 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists, or on a man who reasons like this:
"How good is your maths - Wollemi pine are still here - Dinosaurs are gone. Doesn't it seem as if extinction is the real history of life - then, just as now - and not evolution."
My maths is excellent, Mr Mackay. I have a PhD in the subject, Mr Mackay. And Mr Mackay, that is not maths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Eilidh, posted 06-13-2007 4:41 AM Eilidh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Eilidh, posted 06-13-2007 5:43 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Eilidh
Junior Member (Idle past 6127 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 06-11-2007


Message 28 of 34 (405567)
06-13-2007 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2007 5:18 PM


Re: John Mackay
First, may I say thank you for your reply. I can see you've put a lot of time and effort into it, so I also thank you for that.
I will now go and spend a few days digesting what you have to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2007 5:18 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 29 of 34 (405582)
06-13-2007 7:44 PM


Time to lay this "Hello" topic to rest
Any creationism/evolution debate should go to an suitable existing topic or to a new Proposed New Topic.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 30 of 34 (405642)
06-14-2007 2:23 AM


Reopened
Because of whining elsewhere, this topic is reopened.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024