Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
76 online now:
Admin (Percy), kjsimons, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 72 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,217 Year: 4,329/6,534 Month: 543/900 Week: 67/182 Day: 1/38 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 166 of 355 (617724)
05-30-2011 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by slevesque
05-30-2011 2:52 PM


The Cookie Said ...
This misunderstanding comes from a misconception about how scientists, or humans in general, work in regards to evidence. The key concept to remember is this: evidence is always interpreted. Evidence never dictates anything, it never says anything, it never 100% forces a conclusion.

Yes, in fact I do. I realize that you are interpreting the evidence in a wholy different paradigm then I am, and therefore you come to widely different conclusions.

Come on, slevesque. You already know how terribly wrong this is. You should already know the push back on this.

The evidence does lead. The interpretations of evidence and thus the conclusions reached MUST reflect the reality presented by the evidence.

Science follows the evidence, interprets the results and draws conclusions. Peer Review, in the case of evolution 10s of thousands of knowledge experts over some 8 generations now, assure the logic of the interpretation and the viability of the conclusions reached by re-analyzing the evidence, the interpretations and the conclusions reached by others. This process gives us a very high confidence level in the quality of the interpretations and the conclusions. So high that Evolution is a demonstrable fact of life on this planet whether anyone cares to believe or not.

The evidence leads, followed by interpretation then conclusions.

With creationism/creation science/ID the flow is just backwards. Your conclusions have already been set out for you. And set out not by you or any "creation scientist" looking at evidence but by faith in a myth. Your "interpretation" involves accepting that evidence that does not conflict with your myth, obfuscating other evidence to twist it into a form acceptable to your myth and ignoring any other evidence that contradicts your myth's preset conclusions.

quote:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.


These statements of faith are found at all creationist websites from AIG to ICR to Discovery Institute and beyond.

Conclusions predetermined followed by cherry picking, lying and ignoring the evidence.

This is not some philosophical difference in how to interpret the same set of facts. This is a blatant display of intellectual dishonesty.

Dawkins is akin to a detective arriving at a crime scence, and after looked at the evidence, concludes that person A killed person B with object C. But then, when another detective, after having looked at the same evidence, comes to a different conclusion, he calls this person deluded, stupid, or a lier.

To make your Dawkins analogy accurate you need to state that Detective Dawkins is looking at the forensics evidence to reach his conclusions while the other detective, looking at the same evidence, is basing his interpretation on the revelations he recieved this morning from his chocolate chip cookie.

"Deluded, stupid or a liar" is a rather mild response.

Edited by AZPaul3, : the usual culprits

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Title change


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by slevesque, posted 05-30-2011 2:52 PM slevesque has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 12:20 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2866 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 167 of 355 (617727)
05-31-2011 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by AZPaul3
05-30-2011 11:45 PM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
I can give you plenty of examples of scientists studying evolution who WANT to find particular conclusions.

That is all you are doing when you pick out some creationist website and try to show that they have an agenda, and then use that to paint every objection to evolution as having an agenda. If PZ Myers makes comments about needing to reaffirm his atheism, does that mean all of science therefore has an agenda?

When Michael Behe says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Simon Conway Morris says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Michael Denton says its wrong... When a thousand other scientists say it's wrong, why must we look for a motivation for their saying its wrong-unless you are also going to look for a motivation every time a scientists says its right?

If those saying it is wrong are in the minority, so what? That's not very surprising at all. The majority of astronomers looking for alien life believe in alien life. the majority of shark researchers like sharks.

Anyone who is honest knows that the scientific community is an old boy kind of network. Counter theories are not giving the same access to resources as the paradigm. Atheists have also be shown to be very afraid or at least antagonistic towards those of faith, Hitchens, Dawkins, Myers..should I continue?

So you claim intellectual dishonesty, and I also claim intellectual dishonesty on your side. Do you have the moral superiority? Does Wikipedia have the moral superiority when they intentionally censor the truth and bias all information on their site. Do Universities have the moral superiority when they banish scientists with opposing viewpoints? If your side was really honest why wouldn't they encourage classes in school which teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Why wouldn't they explain more clearly to all students exactly what they know and what they actually don't know about how life operates. What they can show in a lab, and what they actually can only speculate about because they don't have true answers. The more your side fights transparency, the more obvious it is that it is they who are not operating in an honest fashion.

You can get down off your moral high horse, because you were never on it to begin with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by AZPaul3, posted 05-30-2011 11:45 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by GDR, posted 05-31-2011 12:55 AM Bolder-dash has taken no action
 Message 170 by anglagard, posted 05-31-2011 1:34 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 171 by Huntard, posted 05-31-2011 1:40 AM Bolder-dash has taken no action
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 05-31-2011 11:04 AM Bolder-dash has taken no action
 Message 187 by Taq, posted 05-31-2011 11:47 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 189 by AZPaul3, posted 05-31-2011 12:18 PM Bolder-dash has replied

GDR
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 168 of 355 (617729)
05-31-2011 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Bolder-dash
05-30-2011 11:09 PM


Re: Diminished Creationist Participation
Hi BD

I don't pretend to know anything about biology so it makes sense to go to those who do. I'm sure you're aware that Francis Collins headed up the human genome project and is a evangelical Christian. From our perspective he has no atheistic axe to grind. I'll post the link to a CNN article and here is an excerpt from the same article

Francis Collins writes:

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

He points out that it isn't just the fossil record but also the DNA record that is compelling. He sees DNA as pretty much conclusive when it comes to evidence. The book he authored is called "The Language of God" which is how he understands DNA.

Just something you might want to consider.
Here is the link to the article.

Francis Collins


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-30-2011 11:09 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action

GDR
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 169 of 355 (617732)
05-31-2011 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Bolder-dash
05-31-2011 12:20 AM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Hi again BD

I actually wrote this as a reply on another thread only to find it was in reply to a post that to which one was not to reply on pain of posting death.

The question was about how God might interact with His creation. Here is one man's thoughts on it. Polkinghorne was one of the top particle physists in the world who in his forties decided to study to be an Anglican priest in Britain.

Here is a link to the entire address:

God's Action in the World

Here is an excerpt.

John Polkinghorne writes:

Therefore, I have to go on to ask whether it is possible, with integrity, to make sense of a third action of God in the world: God as the one who interacts with what is going on. Is such a view tenable with scientific integrity? Certainly our expectations in that respect seem to have been diminished by the advance of scientific knowledge. Indeed, has not the advance of science made this view of divine action incredible, for the world seems so well described by the regularity of natural law.
When the Church of England Prayer Book was revised in 1928, it still contained a prayer for seasonable weather for crops. When the Alternative Service Book was produced in 1980, that prayer was omitted, though the ASB does contain a harvest collect expressing thanks retrospectively for the fruits of the earth. Now, I'm not quite clear that it's sensible to be thankful afterwards for what you didn't think it was sensible to ask for beforehand, but I think we must recognize that the advance of science has, in many peoples' minds, diminished the expectation that God does anything in particular in the world. However, a God who did nothing in particular -- even if it were conceded that he did it very well -- would surely not be fittingly described as a personal God. So we have to wrestle with the problem.

In actual fact, I think that those who find this difficult are caught in an outdated scientific picture of the world. In the 20th century, we have learned that whatever the physical world is, it is not a machine. It is not the world of clockwork regularity that it seemed to the people of the 18th and (to a large extent) the 19th century. The process of the world is something more subtle and more supple than that.

How can I argue that's so? For a couple of reasons. One, of course, is quantum theory, lurking at the subatomic roots of the world. What seems so clear and straightforward in everyday experience suddenly becomes cloudy and fitful at that level. The quantum world is not a world which is tightly determined.

That is interesting but my feeling is that it is not the most significant line of attack on the question of mechanism. The reason is that, though quantum events may be random, they are very small-scale events. When we get to the larger scale things going on in the world, like ourselves and things around us, all those uncertainties in the quantum world tend to average out. It is rather like the basis on which insurance offices work. They don't know whether you are going to die in the next five years, but they do have a pretty good idea of how many people of your age group are going to die in that period.

Nevertheless, a number of other people have thought that quantum theory might be where the openness of the world lies. Some of it may indeed lie there, but I don't think it is the major thing. Where then is it located? The answer lies, I think, in the behaviour of large scale systems of some complexity. One of the most astonishing things that has happened in physics recently began when we started to realize in the last thirty years or so that the large-scale behaviour of many systems is quite different from what we thought it was. They are far from a clock-like regularity. The world, in Popper's phrase, has much more in the way of clouds in it than clocks. That is the basis of the celebrated, but not very well-named, theory of chaos.

What is that theory all about? I can't describe it properly this evening, but let me give you a flavor of it. It depends upon the fact that when we have systems of some complexity, they rapidly acquire and exquisite sensitivity to circumstance. A very simple example is the air in this room. It consists of lots of molecules moving around. They are not like billiard balls, but they behave in many ways as if they were. Let's take that model, for it's not too misleading. The molecules are whizzing around and colliding with each other. In a period of (ten to the minus ten) seconds (that's one ten thousand millionth of a second, a pretty short time!) each of these molecules has had about fifty collisions with its neighbors.

I then ask myself the following question: how accurately do I have to know how things were moving at the beginning in order to be able to calculate with tolerable accuracy how they will be moving at the end of that period, (ten to the minus ten) seconds? Each billiard ball collision is a perfectly determined event, but the way the billiard balls separate depends extremely sensitively on the exact angle at which they hit each other. If anyone here has ever played snooker or pool, they will be well aware of that fact!

In the course of successive collisions, the uncertainties mount up (they exponentiate, as the mathematically minded say). It turns out that my calculation of how these billiard ball molecules would be moving will be badly out if I have neglected to take into account the presence of an extra electron (the smallest particle of matter) on the other side of the observable universe (about as far away as you can get) interacting with the molecules through its gravitational force (the weakest of the intrinsic forces of nature).

In other words, such a system is unpredictable -- for I can't know about that electron on the other side of the universe -- and it is intrinsically un-isolable. So you see, systems of some degree of complexity really are exquisitely sensitive to circumstance. One of the first ways we learned this was when people started thinking about the weather. It is sometimes referred to as the butterfly effect: that a butterfly stirring the air with its wings in Beijing will affect storm systems over New York in a fortnight's time.

What are we to make of this? What we've learned is the complex systems are exquisitely sensitive and therefore intrinsically unpredictable. "Aha," you say, "but that is simply epistemology. It simply means we can't know what is happening; nevertheless, they may be running along perfectly rigid lines." Well, they might be, but we don't have to buy that. My instincts as a scientist are that what we can know and what is the case are very closely related to each other. That's why scientists are realists. A realist believes that what you can know and what is the case are closely connected.

Critical realists have written on their T-shirts the slogan, "Epistemology Models Ontology." It is therefore a possible move, and in my mind, a good move, to move from unpredictability (an epistemological statement) to openness (an ontological statement) -- to say that the future is not simply a tautologous rearrangement of what was already present in the past, but something really new.

Science through the theory of chaos seems to describe a world of genuine becoming, with a future which is different from the past, a world of real novelty. If that is so it is a gain for physics, for it means that physics begins to describe a world of which we can conceive ourselves as inhabitants. For we experience openness and choice.

Thus it seems to me that modern science tells us that we live in a world whose ground rules do not specify all happenings completely. Instead, they outline an envelope of future possibilities. Chaos theory is badly named, actually. It isn't just randomness; rather, it is a sort of structured openness that it produces. We live in just such a world of flexible openness. It is a world in which we can act, and if we can act, I don't see why God can't act in it as well, within the hiddenness of flexible process.

What does he do and what do we do? That is a difficult question that I am unable to answer properly. But it is a familiar question, for it is simply the theological problem of grace and free will written cosmically large. We live in a world whose openness and hidden flexibility mean that it is a world in which God can be at work.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 12:20 AM Bolder-dash has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Phat, posted 05-31-2011 6:35 AM GDR has taken no action

anglagard
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 170 of 355 (617736)
05-31-2011 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Bolder-dash
05-31-2011 12:20 AM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Bolder-dash writes:

When Michael Behe says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Simon Conway Morris says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Michael Denton says its wrong... When a thousand other scientists say it's wrong, why must we look for a motivation for their saying its wrong-unless you are also going to look for a motivation every time a scientists says its right?

Please feel free to actually name these supposed 'scientists' who are against the historic, genetic, biologic, geologic, chemical, anthropological, and indeed even economic evidence for the TOE. Among those willing to sign up in support of the inherent dishonesty of the Discovery Institute, there were some 700 instead of thousands, most of which were clueless about biology and geology due to such subjects being outside of their purview.

The consensus stands because the consensus works, what has creation science or ID contributed to the world other than sucking time and money from the populace due to various legal maneuvers?

What has the idea of using evidence to support conclusions done to the world? Do I need to spell it out?

Anyone who is honest knows that the scientific community is an old boy kind of network. Counter theories are not giving the same access to resources as the paradigm. Atheists have also be shown to be very afraid or at least antagonistic towards those of faith, Hitchens, Dawkins, Myers..should I continue?

As has been repeated here ad infinitum, it's all about evidence, no evidence, no repeatable experiments, no tenure.

Do Universities have the moral superiority when they banish scientists with opposing viewpoints?

See above.

You can get down off your moral high horse, because you were never on it to begin with.

Considering the fact you claim to be from China, yet speak unlike anyone from China I have not only even known but even heard of, I am curious as to who your moral teacher is, Confucius, Lhotse, Mao, Chang Kai Sheik , Jesus, Allah, or somebody else?

Quite frankly, to me you seem rather more a home schooled American Biblical fundamentalist.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 12:20 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 8:50 AM anglagard has taken no action

Huntard
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 171 of 355 (617739)
05-31-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Bolder-dash
05-31-2011 12:20 AM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Bolder-dash writes:

If your side was really honest why wouldn't they encourage classes in school which teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Why wouldn't they explain more clearly to all students exactly what they know and what they actually don't know about how life operates. What they can show in a lab, and what they actually can only speculate about because they don't have true answers.


This is exactly what they teach, which you would know, had you bothered to take classes in evolutionary biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 12:20 AM Bolder-dash has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Buzsaw, posted 05-31-2011 8:35 AM Huntard has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20758
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 172 of 355 (617755)
05-31-2011 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Bolder-dash
05-30-2011 11:09 PM


Re: Diminished Creationist Participation
Hi Bolder-dash,

If you're having problems in a discussion, for instance someone making empty assertions and refusing to provide supporting evidence, then the proper course of action is to bring it to the attention of moderators by posting a note to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Change author.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-30-2011 11:09 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 8:26 AM Percy has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 15942
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 173 of 355 (617756)
05-31-2011 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by GDR
05-31-2011 12:55 AM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Thats a great link, GDR!
quote:
Now, you'll gather that I'm a person who wants to take science absolutely seriously. It tells us a great deal which is of value and importance concerning what the physical world is like, its structure and process and history. Science is extremely successful, but it is successful because it is also very modest in its ambitions. It seeks to ask and answer only a certain limited set of questions about the world. It confines itself to impersonal and testable kinds of knowledge.

Questions about a Creator are in my opinion personal, and not always logical or supportable. This does notmake the discussion irrelevant.

quote:
Religion is concerned with asking, and seeking the answers to, deeper questions about the world in which we live -- questions of meaning and purpose and destiny. It moves us from the largely impersonal world of scientific knowledge, to the world of personal encounter, with all the risk and ambiguity and necessary commitment that's involved in that. Religion is concerned with the type of inquiry in which testing has to give way to trusting.

This forum has seen a diminished response from Biblical Creationists who limit themselves philosophically, as well as an increase from many atheists who in my opinion also limit themselves philosophically in regards to considering a Creator, never mind creationism.

The forum is, however, only irrelevant to those who expect answers rather than continued dialogue and more questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by GDR, posted 05-31-2011 12:55 AM GDR has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 355 (617759)
05-31-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
05-30-2011 5:06 PM


Re: Diminished Creationist Participation
Percy writes:

Buzsaw writes:

When has any creationist evidence involving the supernatural ever been acknowledged by any secularistic evolutionist here, moderator or otherwise? Case in point is the Exodus thread.

You can't even find natural evidence for the Exodus, let along supernatural. If you would like to resume the Exodus discussion then simply return to the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? thread and post a message identifying which mountain in western Saudi Arabia is Mount Sinai and describing how you identified it. After how long and loudly you've touted this wonderful evidence, what is so hard about doing this that you have to instead come to this thread and complain about how unfair moderation was over there?

--Percy

Say what? It is physical natural evidence that I have cited to show that a higher supernatural force exists in the universe. It is topography. It is photographed forms. It is rocks, etc.

There's more natural evidence cited in the Exodus thread than there ever was in a BB singularity event or a multi-universe thread, both of which defy logic. There is more natural evidence cited in the Exodus thread than there is for the abiogenesis primordial soup to life event.

That's the double standard, Percy. We all have questionable and debatable aspects of our beliefs. We debate them. You're holding some to a higher standard than others, favoring the ones in moderation who espouse your beliefs.

You're wrong. God is my judge. I did not come to this thread to complain. I did not even enter the thread until page five or so. You promoted this thread as to whether there is bias, etc. I came here citing myself as evidence that there is bias. I came here, not to complain, but in an effort to make the cite better where desirable creationists would come and remain, feeling welcome for robust and interesting debate.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 05-30-2011 5:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-31-2011 8:30 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 05-31-2011 8:42 AM Buzsaw has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2866 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 175 of 355 (617761)
05-31-2011 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
05-31-2011 6:18 AM


Re: Diminished Creationist Participation
Thanks for the tip Percy.

Or I guess the other possibility is I could actually believe you when you say-

Anyway, you can be sure that moderation is not going to stand idly by watching threads that consist of little more than one side asking, "Where's your evidence," and the other side saying, "I've already presented it.

No no, on second thought you are right this time, I better just spend more time telling evolutionist moderators that evolutionists aren't presenting any real evidence for their theory. I am sure that will really get me far.

Or, one other possibility. I can discuss the fact that the moderators never ask the evolutionists to provide evidence for their theory, but constantly harangue the creationists about not giving evidence on a thread that I started discussing the fact that creationists don't like to participate here for very long precisely because the moderators only force the creationists to give evidence.

Hmm, let me think about this?

Option 1.) Believe what Percy says when he claims he will always step in and force all sides to provide evidence.

Option 2.) Whine to Percy to tell him that he is not doing what he has said he would do, and never has done it.

Option 3.) Discuss what is wrong with the moderation and why creationists are leaving this site on a thread I started to talk about what is wrong with the moderation and why creationists are leaving this site.

Well, Percy, I have thought it over. Its a tough choice because the options are so varied. But... I am going to, I am going to go with Option 3.

By I am happy to know these other options are available, at least theoretically, in some alternate universe where none of the current rules apply.

WAIT, WAIT WAIT I thought of one more option!!

I can refuse to respond to those who refuse to back up anything they say with any evidence.

Oh, no no no, that option won't work at all. I will be suspended for spamming if I do that. I forgot that technicality.

Ok Option 3.

Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 05-31-2011 6:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 05-31-2011 8:50 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2866 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 176 of 355 (617762)
05-31-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Buzsaw
05-31-2011 8:21 AM


Re: Diminished Creationist Participation
Well said Buzsaw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Buzsaw, posted 05-31-2011 8:21 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 355 (617763)
05-31-2011 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Huntard
05-31-2011 1:40 AM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Huntard writes:

Bolder-dash writes:

If your side was really honest why wouldn't they encourage classes in school which teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Why wouldn't they explain more clearly to all students exactly what they know and what they actually don't know about how life operates. What they can show in a lab, and what they actually can only speculate about because they don't have true answers.


This is exactly what they teach, which you would know, had you bothered to take classes in evolutionary biology.

That is not true on all levels of education, beginning with grade school science classes. Evolutionis assumed, period.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Huntard, posted 05-31-2011 1:40 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Huntard, posted 05-31-2011 8:47 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

Percy
Member
Posts: 20758
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 178 of 355 (617764)
05-31-2011 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Buzsaw
05-31-2011 8:21 AM


Re: Diminished Creationist Participation
Hi Buz,

The message you posted yesterday in the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? thread, Message 576, contains no evidence, only claims of evidence.

The standards are the same for everyone. If you find yourself in a discussion with someone who is posting claims of evidence but never posting the evidence itself then you should bring to it the attention of moderators by posting a note to Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Buzsaw, posted 05-31-2011 8:21 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Buzsaw, posted 05-31-2011 9:25 AM Percy has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 179 of 355 (617765)
05-31-2011 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Buzsaw
05-31-2011 8:35 AM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Buzsaw writes:

That is not true on all levels of education, beginning with grade school science classes. Evolutionis assumed, period.


If by this you mean that it is "assumed" on the same level that it is "assumed" that 1+1=2, then yes, you are correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Buzsaw, posted 05-31-2011 8:35 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2866 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 180 of 355 (617766)
05-31-2011 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by anglagard
05-31-2011 1:34 AM


Re: Ok, I'll give my opinion ...
Please feel free to actually name these supposed 'scientists' who are against the historic, genetic, biologic, geologic, chemical, anthropological, and indeed even economic evidence for the TOE.

Hello Anglagard, welcome to the discussion. I would be happy to answer your intriguing question, but first let me clear something up. Are you mentally ***?

Its fine if you are because I can type slower if need be. T h e r e a s o n I a s k i s b e c a u s e I j u s t l i s t e d 3 s c i e n t i s t s, a l l o f w h om a r e e x p e r t s i n b i o l o g y.

So if you are *** I can certainly understand why you would ask this question. If you aren't *** and asked the question anyway, then I can't understand why you asked it. Of course its also possible that you wouldn't know that you are ***.

So please clarify this for me. Maybe you were looking for me to list 4. Maybe autistic people like 4? Or maybe 5? But if I named 5 are you sure you wouldn't ask me to name 6?

Anyway, nobody needs to feel bad about being ***. That's really the main point I wanted to make here.

Even if they didn't have the benefits of being home schooled by American fundamentalists like the fictitious me.

Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Apply word censoring.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by anglagard, posted 05-31-2011 1:34 AM anglagard has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022