Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Science In Schools: Give Us A Lesson Plan
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 48 (67405)
11-18-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brad McFall
11-18-2003 1:30 PM


Re: subtext
Brad,
Just a few questions:
1. What evidenciary justification do you have for assuming created kinds (baramins) when constructing taxonomy?
2. How will you deal with the progressive movement into separate baramins (as they are understood from YEC lit today) as seen in the fossil record? Example: Reptile to mammal series with jawbones becoming middle ear ossicles, Archeopteryx.
3. Does your curriculum rely heavily on extant species in current ecosystems? If so, why is the fossil record and extinct species ignored or played down?
4. Is catastrophism, most notably the Noah's Flood, important to your model and curriculum, or is punctuated catastrophism (meteor strikes eg) with intervening periods of uniformity to be used?
5. Why should we use baramins when they have yet to be defined?
I think you posted something similar on another thread, but I may have misunderstood your overall direction (evo or creation). Personally, I think that using a baramin lens to look at current speciation may lead to local baramins but may miss the boat when genetics and the fossil record are brought into play. Vestiges and atavisms would further blur the lines between current baramins as seen through the lens of uniform evolutionary lines with common ancestery going further back than baramins may want to allow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 1:30 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 48 (67441)
11-18-2003 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by keith63
11-18-2003 2:45 PM


Sounds like a fancy way of avoiding the issue. I would like to know how this is considered a bogus list. I have read many of these books and I think these scientists are working at major universities. Dr. David Menton works in St. Louis at Washington University in their Anatomy department. One of my colleagues had him as an instructor. I still don't know why evolutionists seem to be so scared of intelligent design? They always attempt to prevent it from being mentioned in the classroom.
We (ie us evos) would gladly talk about your topic of discussion, but it would be more appropriate in a separate thread. Read the original post (post#1) and judge for yourself how well your post adds to the discussion. In fact, I will gladly be the first respondent, if I happen to beat everyone else to it. Threads do tend to wander a bit on this site (I am as guilty as any) but your post was a totaly divergence. Again, feel free to start a new thread and add a little of your own commentary in addition to the large amount of cut and paste.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 2:45 PM keith63 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 3:19 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 23 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 3:30 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 48 (67452)
11-18-2003 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brad McFall
11-18-2003 1:51 PM


Re: subtext
******if you want to move LOUDMOUTH's questions to a new thread, I'll be happy to dicontinue posting in this one haveing said two dimes worth and respond to the substance in that error exception throw forward if you want.
I have done just that. I felt a little guilty for getting things somewhat off topic. It is in the Evolution forum under Dinstinguishing Baramins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 1:51 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 48 (67476)
11-18-2003 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by keith63
11-18-2003 3:56 PM


That's your opinion. More than 80% of the public sampled seem to think otherwise. Scientist are the only population which seems to think that evolution is the only true alternative and they seem to have a religious agenda.
If 80% of the population thought African Americans were less human than whites, should we have kept segragation? In science, there isn't a vote on what the truth is, truth is dependent upon the evidence. If 80% of the population said there wasn't a god, would you stop going to church? I would hope not. Majority of the Masses is a dangerous example to follow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 3:56 PM keith63 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 4:21 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 48 (67487)
11-18-2003 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by keith63
11-18-2003 4:21 PM


Funny you should mention that because that is the problem we get with evolution. Darwin thought that Blacks were inferior to whites, he also thought women were inferior to men. Hitler was an evolutionist and look what he did to the Jews and homosexuals. And there is a movement among scientists against the theory of evolution. If there was not then we would have issues comming up like Kansas, Ohio and Texas. In 100 years we will probably be laughed at for thinking that all this complexity happened by chance. The theory of evolution will be placed in its rightful place with spontaneous generation.
It's our own prejudices and biases that get in the way. Where in science is there evidence for the prejudices put forth by Darwin and Hitler?
What problems are there in Kansas et al.
In 100 years we will laugh because the first life will turn out to be very simple and only become complex over time.
The theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis, you seem to making that mistake over and over. The theory of evolution starts with the first life, abiogenesis starts with no life. Very distinct theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 4:21 PM keith63 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 48 (67492)
11-18-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by keith63
11-18-2003 4:34 PM


THere is a ton of data being collected by scientists who diagree with the theory of evolution but that evidence is censored by the peer reviewers who edit the journals. Here are some of them.
Do you know of any of the rejection letters from the publications? I would be interested in why they were rejected which should be pointed out quite specifically in the rejection letter.
The only way you can say this is not science is to make up a deffinition which automatically eleminates anything which points to intelligence.
ICR eliminates any evidence that contradicts the Bible off hand without any scientific justification. Which do you think is more honest, rejecting evidence because of a presupposed belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis or rejection of a theory that lacks evidence? I would vote for the latter.
In other words, ICR does a good job of eliminating intelligence on its own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 4:34 PM keith63 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