Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Biology teacher resource help
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 81 (453388)
02-02-2008 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
02-02-2008 2:35 AM


why the hostility, PaulK?
Do you think I should be presenting the evo side of the debate? This is from the OP?
In addition, has anyone found any creationist arguments that make sense.
This is a debate board welcoming the non-evo perspective in debate, right? The question is asked of "anyone."
It seems to me you are insisting that only evolutionists can answer that question and anyone else would be pushing their ideas falsely?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2008 2:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-02-2008 3:06 AM randman has replied
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2008 3:12 AM randman has replied

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


Message 17 of 81 (453389)
02-02-2008 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
02-02-2008 3:00 AM


The topic originator is looking for mainstream science sources...
...not for the creationist perspective. Let's keep the evo/creo argument out of this topic.
All others should do likewise. No evo's taking potshots at creo perspectives.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: Upon reevaluation, my above comments may well be wrong and misplaced. But people, be nice - And supply quality references.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix typo in previous added by edit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 3:00 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 3:15 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 81 (453390)
02-02-2008 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
02-02-2008 3:00 AM


Re: why the hostility, PaulK?
Hostility ?
quote:
Do you think I should be presenting the evo side of the debate? This is from the OP?
I think you should be pointing to the creationist equivalent of the evolution material he asked for. Full presentations which take a good hard look at the evidence. Not ideas you just happen to have taken a liking to without any serious investigation of the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 3:00 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 3:17 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 19 of 81 (453391)
02-02-2008 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Adminnemooseus
02-02-2008 3:06 AM


I'll drop off then, but note.....
I appreciate your intervention....Obviously fishboy is an evolutionist and may therefore not agree with me, and he seems to perhaps have been influenced by PaulK's smear or maybe not.
However, this was his response to my post:
Yes this is the type of info I want.
Seems to me he wanted to hear what I and other non-evos have to say. He stated this was the type of info he wanted, and then a partisan evo here slams me as ill-informed (I think if fishboy reads my posts in-depth he will know that isn't true), and the result now seems to me that creationists and IDers cannot present the arguments they think are valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-02-2008 3:06 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 20 of 81 (453392)
02-02-2008 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
02-02-2008 3:12 AM


Re: why the hostility, PaulK?
Hmmmm.....so your argument is we should present "full" arguments on every creationist or ID argument? One thread cannot do that, nor present the full spectrum of evo arguments. I was presenting a cursory review of some arguments and saying he could peruse the forum for more details.
But I'll drop off now per admin's comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2008 3:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-02-2008 3:21 AM randman has replied
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2008 3:28 AM randman has replied

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


Message 21 of 81 (453393)
02-02-2008 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
02-02-2008 3:17 AM


My previous comments have been edited
Look at message 17 again.
If you have what you think is a quality creationist perspective resource, list it. But not just a bunch of blather.
To all - This is not a topic to debate evo/creo.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 3:17 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 3:27 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 22 of 81 (453394)
02-02-2008 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Adminnemooseus
02-02-2008 3:21 AM


Ok, but.....
My approach was just to provide some cursory review of creationist and ID arguments against Darwinism which might mean talking on a bit to do that. In other words, I was more or less just trying to list some arguments in a way someone not familiar to them might get a basic handle on the argument, and then I was pointing them to the remainder of the forum that debate and discuss the ideas. Hopefully fishboy will take some time to read in this case, some of my arguments or other critics of evo's arguments.
One cannot really give a full-orbed answer on one thread, heck not even on many threads, and just listing them by some title wouldn't mean anything not familiar to the debate.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-02-2008 3:21 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 81 (453395)
02-02-2008 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
02-02-2008 3:17 AM


Re: why the hostility, PaulK?
I said that the creationist material should be the equivalent of the evolutionist material. The evolutionist material has not been posted to this thread - instead references have been provided to resources. Perhaps you should learn to stop jumping to erroneous conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 3:17 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 3:30 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 24 of 81 (453396)
02-02-2008 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
02-02-2008 3:28 AM


Re: why the hostility, PaulK?
You and I have a VERY different opinion on the quality and validity of TalkOrigin material. I see it as basically propaganda and think my comments or anyone is on a par with it.....it's not exactly peer-review material, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2008 3:28 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2008 3:39 AM randman has not replied
 Message 43 by nator, posted 02-02-2008 6:11 PM randman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 81 (453397)
02-02-2008 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
02-02-2008 3:30 AM


Re: why the hostility, PaulK?
Regardless of your opinion of the material, it has been carefully thought-out, it is presented in detail and it is well referenced. The same cannot be said for your opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 3:30 AM randman has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 26 of 81 (453398)
02-02-2008 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by fishboy
02-02-2008 12:39 AM


I've been watching Walter Lewins physics lectures ever since. I watched one of the bio lectures, just what i'm looking for.
Oh no no no no no, fish. Nothing against Walter, but that's amateur hour.
Here's what you need:
The Vega Science Trust - Richard Feynman - Science Videos
Now that's physics.
(Seriously. You must watch all 4 videos.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by fishboy, posted 02-02-2008 12:39 AM fishboy has not replied

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


Message 27 of 81 (453400)
02-02-2008 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by fishboy
02-02-2008 2:38 AM


discussing the TalkOrigins article
Ironically, I think that particular site can illustrate a creationist criticism of evo theory. The linked article on the 29 Evidences states:
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
And elaborates on one of those theories, for example, which entail "evolution."
Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool.
However, another article under the heading "What is Evolution" contradicts that definitionhere:
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
That is a much more narrow concept of what evolution is. So which is it? Is evolution a change in a species or subspecies gene pool, or is it universal common descent, the microbe to man story?
Note the same article states:
Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it.
So most biologists don't understand it, but this internet site does, and yet they have different definitions of the term "evolution." Note the comment "very few" understand it. Are appeals to elite knowledge on this subject indicative of well-thought out scientific reasoning?
Scientific creationism is 100% crap. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution.
Is this reflective of genuine well-reasoned discussion or a smear and propaganda tactic?
Imo, evolutionists don't help students develop critical thinking. Even this site claims most biologists don't even understand evolution all that well....maybe they are correct and I shouldn't slam them for that. But if that is the case, why are we teaching kids something Phds don't really understand?
Elsewhere the site defines evolution as:
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Once again, this is a limited concept of evolution that no one disputes. It's misleading to suggest that what critics of evolution are disputing is this definition when it is not, but that's what evos often do. They accuse creationists of not understanding what evolution is and then offer up a limited definition. Creationists understand what microevolution is and they don't disagree with it.
But "evolution" in terms of the Theory of Evolution is more than that. It is as the 29 Evidences states:
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
That's what is being debated and so it's a false response to creationists and Iders to try to switch to debating "evolution" as defined by mere heritable change, but that's the underlying tactic, imo.
Take this for example:
Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
What can be demonstrated? They are conflating the idea of evolution as heritable change with universal common descent and using one definition, the one that is demonstratable, to suggest the other disputed idea is demonstratable. Imo, that's wrong and clouds the mind. It's propaganda.
Note:
This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!
Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Note where they are basically saying creationists are wrong because evolution is "easy to demonstrate." Did you catch that? It's propaganda because creationists are not arguing over the idea of heritable change, they are arguing over universal common descent and macroevolution. So what the evo here is saying is that, hey, the creationist criticisms are wacko and ill-informed because they are arguing against something easily demonstrated.
But is that true? Is that what creationists are taking issue with?
Moreover, how can a site that cannot even give a consistent definition of evolution accuse the public, biologists, and creationists and IDers of being ignorant?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by fishboy, posted 02-02-2008 2:38 AM fishboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Admin, posted 02-02-2008 9:33 AM randman has not replied
 Message 48 by fishboy, posted 02-02-2008 10:29 PM randman has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 28 of 81 (453401)
02-02-2008 4:04 AM


In case you're interested, this guy has the goods.
pharyngula | ScienceBlogs
And you can betcher bottom dollar he's tellin it to you straight.
Try these too:
evolgen | ScienceBlogs
evolvingthoughts | ScienceBlogs
strangerfruit | ScienceBlogs
gnxp | ScienceBlogs
That last one is a bit technical.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by anglagard, posted 02-02-2008 4:23 AM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 45 by fishboy, posted 02-02-2008 10:07 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 29 of 81 (453404)
02-02-2008 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by molbiogirl
02-02-2008 4:04 AM


Thanks!
molbiogirl writes:
Try these too:
evolgen | ScienceBlogs
evolvingthoughts | ScienceBlogs
strangerfruit | ScienceBlogs
gnxp | ScienceBlogs
That last one is a bit technical.
What a gold mine! And the second leads to even more treasures.
Signing off now, have some reading to catch up on. See you in a few days...or is that decades?

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by molbiogirl, posted 02-02-2008 4:04 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 30 of 81 (453461)
02-02-2008 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
02-02-2008 4:03 AM


Re: discussing the TalkOrigins article
Hi Randman,
Suspended again already, I see.
The goal of EvC Forum is to provide a venue where the two sides in the creation/evolution controversy can engage in dispassionate and constructive discussion that leads to a better understanding. We can't achieve that goal if we allow threads to descend into raucous, rancorous and contumely chaos.
It isn't impossible to get along with people you disagree with. Seek the best in people, you'll find it. Try to find some middle ground. Follow the Forum Guidelines and moderator requests.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 4:03 AM randman 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