Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9027 total)
57 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1 (2 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,525 Year: 1,171/14,102 Month: 163/411 Week: 59/125 Day: 27/32 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Request for Tranquility Base
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4666 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1 of 44 (19051)
10-04-2002 2:52 AM


TB: Believe it or not, I think I may take you up on your response to the "I'm never moving down south" thread (at least partially). I am on the Board of Governors (equivalent to school board) of my two daughters' school (K-12). I have been asked to review the syllabus for the IB Biology curriculum they plan to teach, primarily with an eye toward providing additional resources/appropriate papers, recommending texts, etc. (For those who don't know, IB stands for International Baccalaureate - IB Biology is roughly equivalent to taking a condensed, intensive pass at the first two years of a core biology degree at the average uni - with a lot of the detail omitted).

The syllabus includes in the core material concerning origin of species a brief discussion (probably no more than two class periods...) of "Other theories for the origin of species including special creation and panspermia". The section concludes with "Discuss the evidence for all these theories and the applicability of the scientific method for further investigation". Since this is an international school outside the US, it is not restricted by the courts. Here's your golden opportunity to insert the best evidence you have available for special creation. Be aware, however, that the kids who take IB Biology are going to be really hard to convince. God-of-the-gaps and Behe-esque argument from incredulity are NOT gonna fly. The students are from multiple countries and multiple religions - including a fair selection of non-religious students. An argument based only on the assertion that the Christian goddidit will fall about as flat as a lead balloon.

Before everyone jumps down my throat - the rest of the two-yearsyllabus is pure science, including topics such as: OOL (an examination of the various hypotheses and evidence for/against each), detailed discussion on the evidence for evolution, detailed discussion on human evolution, neo-Darwinian synthesis, intro to population genetics, intro to biodiversity and conservation, intro to evolutionary psychology/sociobiology, etc. It's a damn good curriculum afaict.

Here's your chance, TB. Give it your best shot. Present the hard evidence that will convince these kids that goddidit. If you can at least provide a convincing, evidence-based argument, I promise to bring it to the class and work to convince the rest of the board that it should be admitted.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 10-05-2002 9:55 PM Quetzal has responded
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 3:15 AM Quetzal has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 44 (19152)
10-05-2002 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
10-04-2002 2:52 AM


--I know this is a question directed toward TB, however, I would simply like to make a simple addition. As we find when we do encounter discussions of highly intellectual debate here at evcforum, there is increasingly great emphasis placed on the concept of interpretation. I would therefor, recommend there be a segregated section in the syllabus whereby this concept is revealed and delved into at the highest depth possible. Without completely understanding these principles, the simplest questioning of current scientific hypothesis and their fundamental basis in data & evidence are unable to begin crossing the students minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Quetzal, posted 10-04-2002 2:52 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 10-06-2002 7:04 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4666 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 44 (19160)
10-06-2002 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
10-05-2002 9:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I know this is a question directed toward TB, however, I would simply like to make a simple addition. As we find when we do encounter discussions of highly intellectual debate here at evcforum, there is increasingly great emphasis placed on the concept of interpretation. I would therefor, recommend there be a segregated section in the syllabus whereby this concept is revealed and delved into at the highest depth possible. Without completely understanding these principles, the simplest questioning of current scientific hypothesis and their fundamental basis in data & evidence are unable to begin crossing the students minds.

Hi TC:

Although the OP was addressed to our good TB - primarily in response to his post in the "Never moving down south thread" - the offer is open to ANY creationist.

Given the nature and quality of the science presented in the course, and the fact that these kids are being given a crash-course in scientific methodology and critical thinking along with their biology, I do have some suggestions:

1. Offering simplistic explanations such as "Genesis said it, therefore it's true" won't fly.

2. Attacking ToE rather than providing evidentiary support for creationism won't fly. These kids are going to demand evidence one way or the other - the curriculum is designed to present the kids with evidence for evolutionary biology, then give them the tools needed to analyze at least superficially the evidence. I'd expect the creationist POV to be presented the same way.

3. They will have a pretty good foundation in science, but won't (probably) be able to really understand extremely technical details. However, they should be able to get the gist of most arguments. If there is documentary support - even highly technical - for the argument, it can be presented as additional reading. You will need to provide some explanation that can be understood by a smart student, but that shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. After all, creationism gains adherents regularly by appealing to a completely lay audience. Here's a chance to present evidence to a somewhat more knowledgeable group.

4. These are budding biologists. "Wow, life is really complex therefore goddidit" will be insufficient.

I appreciate your feedback, TC, however you should realize that the course is not designed as an evolution-vs-creation debate, nor is it designed to thoroughly investigate creationism. I am merely offering the opportunity to creationists to provide at least ONE compelling, evidentiary argument in favor of their stance. As it stands now, the kids will probably get at best a brief selection of a couple of articles from AiG or ICR as the "best" that creationism can come up with. You should as aware as I am that these don't necessarily provide good evidence.

Basically, it's put up or shut up time. I'm giving "you" a possible forum to present the best you've got to a bunch of smart kids without worrying about whether you'll get sued. I guarantee - in spite of my personal "bias" - that the material will be presented to them as compellingly and fairly as you present it here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 10-05-2002 9:55 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 10-06-2002 3:04 PM Quetzal has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 44 (19168)
10-06-2002 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Quetzal
10-06-2002 7:04 AM


"1. Offering simplistic explanations such as "Genesis said it, therefore it's true" won't fly.

2. Attacking ToE rather than providing evidentiary support for creationism won't fly. These kids are going to demand evidence one way or the other - the curriculum is designed to present the kids with evidence for evolutionary biology, then give them the tools needed to analyze at least superficially the evidence. I'd expect the creationist POV to be presented the same way.

3. They will have a pretty good foundation in science, but won't (probably) be able to really understand extremely technical details. However, they should be able to get the gist of most arguments. If there is documentary support - even highly technical - for the argument, it can be presented as additional reading. You will need to provide some explanation that can be understood by a smart student, but that shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. After all, creationism gains adherents regularly by appealing to a completely lay audience. Here's a chance to present evidence to a somewhat more knowledgeable group.

4. These are budding biologists. "Wow, life is really complex therefore goddidit" will be insufficient."
--I agree with all the above.

"I appreciate your feedback, TC, however you should realize that the course is not designed as an evolution-vs-creation debate, nor is it designed to thoroughly investigate creationism."
--I understand and agree that this isn't the case in a bio classroom, nor should it be what we make of this opportunity.

--Is this a creation vs. non-creation or is this an evolution vs. non-evolution type of thing?

"I am merely offering the opportunity to creationists to provide at least ONE compelling, evidentiary argument in favor of their stance. As it stands now, the kids will probably get at best a brief selection of a couple of articles from AiG or ICR as the "best" that creationism can come up with. You should as aware as I am that these don't necessarily provide good evidence."
--I have also found this to be true, if this were to be what is supplied, a vat of sophistry & other such appeals to incredulity this opportunity will indeed drop like a lead balloon. If I were to present an article explaining an alternative to the ToE, Initial Cosmogony, abiogenesis, etc. there would be required a little more that single compelling argument from a specific research query. Maybe what is required is a brief, general, but relatively detailed thesis in support of an alternative to one of the above. What kind of time period are we talking about here before your input must be given?

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 10-06-2002 7:04 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Quetzal, posted 10-07-2002 2:09 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4666 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 5 of 44 (19187)
10-07-2002 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by TrueCreation
10-06-2002 3:04 PM


quote:
I have also found this to be true, if this were to be what is supplied, a vat of sophistry & other such appeals to incredulity this opportunity will indeed drop like a lead balloon. If I were to present an article explaining an alternative to the ToE, Initial Cosmogony, abiogenesis, etc. there would be required a little more that single compelling argument from a specific research query. Maybe what is required is a brief, general, but relatively detailed thesis in support of an alternative to one of the above. What kind of time period are we talking about here before your input must be given?

Exactly, TC. My emphasis in the above pinpoints what I think would be the best target - but I'm open to suggestions. I agree that it would be tough to present a thorough refutation of the ToE in one or two classes. However, I like your idea about the "general thesis". A general idea, with references that can be checked, would be super - and probably the best thing that could be presented in the time allotted.

Timeframe: There's a school board meeting on the 15th. I'll be presenting my recommendations for the curricula then, although I'll probably have a meeting beforehand with the bio prof. You have my email, or you could post it here on the forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 10-06-2002 3:04 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 44 (19188)
10-07-2002 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
10-04-2002 2:52 AM


*******************************************
EVIDENCE FOR A CREATED ORIGIN OF LIFE FORMS
*******************************************
A 2 lesson alternative origins syllabus outline
for senior high school science courses

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=14&m=6#6 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=14&m=6#6">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=14&m=6#6
Version 1.5

By Tranquility Base
Registered member
Creation vs. Evolution Forum

October 2002

NOTES
1. This is a feasibility study in creation education.
2. Although a specific textbook would be helpful to educators, until something specific appears along these lines, this outline, together with mainstream and existing creationist books and web resources, should enable an instructive pair of lessons to be prepared.
3. Rebuttals of obvious evolutionary counter arguments are not included for the sake of brevity.
4. A serious attempt has been made to restrict both the details and interpretations presented to either agreed facts or arguably logical steps so that it can be, in the best case, presented bias-free by educators.
5. There are no (i.e. zero) conditions on the reuse of any of this material in whole or part except of course for any attempt to restrict conditions on the open reuse of this rendition or its parts. Citation is not required or requested.

LESSON 1
---------------

* INTRODUCTION
It is possible that the life forms on earth are due to creation by a higher intelligence at some point or points in the history of our planet. Although the higher intelligence is presumably not able to be studied by science it is not necessarily unscientific to study features of life forms which reveal signs of creation. Discuss the possibility that mainstream science unjustifiably extrapolated from Darwin's evidence of small scale evolution to 'macroevolution'. Introduce the concepts of microevolution as the fine-tuning of existing traits and macroevolution as the introduction of new traits (as defined by mainstream Erwin, see Lesson 2).

* DISTINCTNESS OF KINDS & ANATOMIES
The tree of life constructed by comparing anatomies highlights differences as much as it highlights similarities. The distinctness of the basic types of organisms, anatomical features and genetic parts are approximately what one would expect following the creation of basic kinds for distinct purposes followed by the operation of Darwin's natural selection, generations of reproduction and hybridization. Examples of anatomical novelties (e.g.: multicellularity, respiration, circulation, the nervous system, the backbone, jaws of jawed fish, limbs, legs, wings, the shelled egg of birds/reptiles, the placenta of mammals, feathers of birds) that distinguish higher groups. Examples of distinct kinds identifiable by hybridization criteria (e.g.: Canidae = dogs/wolves/foxes/jackals, Equidae = horses/donkeys/zebra & Funariaceae = mosses).

* SYSTEMATIC JUMPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD
The fossil record similarly displays distinct anatomies of extinct organisms and the fossil gaps predicted by Darwin have generally not been filled in by paleontologists digging for over a century. Although some examples of organisms with mixed features such as whale-like animals with legs or reptiles with mammalian features can be found there is still a systematic lack of evidence of gradual transitions. The lack of good examples of gradual transitions has led to the well known evolutionary theory of 'Punctuated Equilibrium' which explains that evolution occurs in jumps in small populations in such a way that the transitionary fossils are rarely left behind. Alternatively it is possible that the kinds of organisms simply cover a very large 'space' of anatomies but were still created separately as suggested by the gaps. Examples: Cambrian explosion, backbones, limbs, digits, wings, bat sonar.

* FOSSIL ORDER
The fossil order is approximately in agreement with evolutionary trees generated from anatomical and molecular similarity which in turn are approximately complexity arrangements. However, in many cases the trees predict 'ghost' lineages where organisms are predicted to have existed but are not present in the fossil record for up to hundreds of millions of years of supposed geological time. The creation possibilities for explanation of the fossil order include (i) progressive creation over geological time, accepting the mainstream dating methods, and (ii) that a large flood buried and fossilized organisms at different layers based on the interpretation of much of the seawater and freshwater layers on land as being due to cataclysmic flood waters. Option (i) explains the fossil order through an evolution-like creation order. Although some good evidence of catastrophic formation of the geological column exists (including fossil graveyards and strong ripple effects evident in many layers), option (ii) proposes, with little direct evidence currently, that this could generate the observed fossil oderings. Discuss potential mechanisms of fossil ordering: Relative mobility of organisms, water sorting properties and ecological zoning as well as problems such as the stratagraphical separation of dinosaurs and advanced mammals.

* CONVERGENT FEATURES
Anatomical features of organisms don't always appear in a 'monophyletic' fashion meaning that a feature wont always only appear once and then in every organism in that 'branch'. Vision and flight both appear in multiple parts of the tree separately. In the evolutionary scenario wings and eyes have each separately evolved on multiple occasions. There are hints that such 'convergences' may be too unlikely for evolution and special creation easily explains the appearance of anatomical features for designed purposes. At a finer level, all trees constructed by evolutionists have problems with 'convergences' with features appearing and reappearing at multiple positions along branches suggesting that instead, each creature was individually created. Large scale examples: wings in insects/dinosaurs/birds/bats. Eyes. Small scale example: show a tree with convergent features.

LESSON 2
-------------

* ROLE OF NATURAL SELECTION
Natural selection is the process by which a variable population of organisms can change through selection by the environment. As Charles Darwin noticed, a migrating population of finches containing a mix of traits will have its mix changed at the new location due to differential survivability. This 'microevolution' works on existing traits (and underlying genes) and in the creation model operates as it does in the evolutionary model - as a fine tuning mechanism and source of speciation. In the creation model the extrapolation from beak shape changes to the origin of beaks is considered to be unjustifiable as the former requires no new underlying traits whereas the latter does. Discuss the Galapagos finches, artificial dog breeding, agricultural breeding (wild mustard leads to broccoli, cabbage & cauliflower by selecting for features including leaf, stem and flower size) and viral resistance.

* DISTINCTNESS IN GENETICS
Genes are the lists of DNA bases that store information about our anatomical characteristics or traits. Blue/brown eyes, type A/B/O blood or short/tall are variants on the traits of eye color, blood type and height. These variants are called 'alleles'. A blue eyed person has two copies of the 'blue' allele - a gene with DNA that gives blue eyes. A tall person carries a 'tall' growth factor allele in his DNA. But the DNA is not a random series of 'bases'. Most random sequences result in a useless gene. So although it is very easy for a 'type A blood gene' to mutate into a 'type B blood gene' the genes for height or eye color have no similarity to those that code for blood type. Height, eye color and blood type genes all code for proteins that do a particular biochemical job. So although natural selection (an example of microevolution) and mutations can easily change alleles within a trait they can't easily do this from one trait to another. Some mainstream published research agrees that if macroevolution were true it would be 'more than repeated rounds of microevolution' (Erwin DH. Evol Dev. 2000 vol 2, pp78-84.). Discuss the issues with respect to information, gain, loss vs. allelic change.

* GENES CODE FOR PROTEINS WHICH DO VERY SPECIFIC JOBS & THE SYSTEMS APPEAR TO REQUIRE A MINIMAL NUMBER OF THEM
The distinct gene 'families' do very specific jobs in cells and organisms. That is why most mutations are disadvantageous or simply change the 'strength' of an already existing function. This is why it is easy to lose a function or change the shape of a beak or become resistant to a drug through mutations. For the same reason nobody has seen the evolution of new systems in bacteria after millions of bacterial generations in the laboratory. Not only is the evolution of a new gene type difficult as described above, but anatomical, physiological and cellular systems appear to require a minimal number of such parts before they can work. Example of protein jobs: the ribosome, an enzyme & hemoglobin. All organisms have a ribosome to make proteins but only organisms that transport oxygen or electrons have hemoglobin family members. A simple example from M. Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box'. Discuss issue of alternative use of parts in the evolutionary scenario as a hypothesis.

* CONCLUSIONS
The facts of 'homologies', a tree of life, convergences, organisms with mixed features, fossil order, genetic flexibility and natural selection are mostly agreed on by all. These facts are however interpreted differently in the creation and evolutionary models. What is seen as evidence of common descent can be viewed as evidence of a common creator. In the creation model the similarities, differences and complexities of life are seen as evidence of a common creator that is consistent with the known adaptive processes of biology. So although all of life shares certain genes, cellular systems and anatomical features, and although these can adapt to the environment, organisms also contain 'group specific' genes, cellular systems and anatomical features suggestive of creation.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-14-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Quetzal, posted 10-04-2002 2:52 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 10-07-2002 4:09 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 9:44 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4666 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 7 of 44 (19193)
10-07-2002 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tranquility Base
10-07-2002 3:15 AM


Excellent start, TB! Really only one suggestion so far:

quote:
Even scientists who believe that evolution is responible for life on earth admit that creation is an alternative that miust be considered.

This is a slip back into the old creationist "argument from authority". It adds nothing to your paragraph, and is an immediate red flag. The rest of the paragraph stands quite well without it. Remember, we're trying to convince the students with evidence, not rhetoric.

you're[/b] trying to convince the students"

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 10-07-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 3:15 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 4:15 AM Quetzal has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2002 10:37 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 44 (19194)
10-07-2002 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Quetzal
10-07-2002 4:09 AM


^ Point taken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 10-07-2002 4:09 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 44 (19265)
10-07-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tranquility Base
10-07-2002 3:15 AM


Update 3 is up. I'll probably add a few more concrete examples in each section over the next few days and then leave it at that.

Any ideas from evolutionists about fossil order? From a US first ammendment POV can we mention a large flood as a possible cause of the fossil record or not? I am happy to leave it out but, to me, it seems unscientific not to mention flood geology as an alternative model of the geo-col?

What about a paragraph like:

The only possibilities for creation explanations of the fossil order appear to be (i) progressive creation over geological time, accepting the mainstream dating methods, and (ii) that a large flood buried and fossilised organisms at differnet layers based on the interpretaion of continental marine stata as being due to cataclysmic flood waters. Option (i) expains the fossil order through an evoltuion-like creation order whereas option (ii) proposes, with little direct evidence, that a cataclysmic flood could generate the observed fossil orderings via mobility-sorting-ecology considerations.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-07-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 3:15 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 10-07-2002 10:03 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Quetzal, posted 10-08-2002 5:15 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19961
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 10 of 44 (19267)
10-07-2002 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
10-07-2002 9:44 PM


TB writes:

it seems unscientific not to mention flood geology as an alternative model of the geo-col?

In public school science classrooms, you should mention it to the extent a consensus of scientific opinion about the evidence justifies it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 9:44 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 10-07-2002 10:09 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3989 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 44 (19269)
10-07-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
10-07-2002 10:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:

In public school science classrooms, you should mention it to the extent a consensus of scientific opinion about the evidence justifies it.

--Percy


So, not at all, then?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 10-07-2002 10:03 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 10:14 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 44 (19270)
10-07-2002 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mark24
10-07-2002 10:09 PM


^ I think as I sumariize it in my lesson plan it is justifiable as an optional part of the creation model, listed along side progressive creation? If there is an alternative theory which has evidence then there are stll always parts that are not well supported that still need to be mentioned.

I think there is very good evidence of a flood origin of the geo-column as you know. However I agree that the fossil order is not well explained.

I could easily list hundreds of PhDed sceintists who side with flood geology including dozens of PhDed geologists. That is a sufficient basis for mention in what is already an 'alternative theories' lesson. It simply is a creation fossil order possibility but I leave that paragraph as optional if it ruffles too many feathers.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-07-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 10-07-2002 10:09 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 10-07-2002 10:48 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 500 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 44 (19274)
10-07-2002 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tranquility Base
10-07-2002 10:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I could easily list hundreds of PhDed sceintists who side with flood geology including dozens of PhDed geologists.

And Steve Austin counts for two of them! Are you sure you are not from Chicago, TB? By the way, I'd like to see this list of dozens of 'PhDed' geologists.

Also, how did we ever get 'PhD' to become a verb?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 10:14 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 11:15 PM edge has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 44 (19275)
10-07-2002 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by edge
10-07-2002 10:48 PM


What's Chicago got to do with it Edge? I've obviously missed something here. The list is basically the ICR, AIG and '50 scientists with PhDs' book list. PhD became a verb to save time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 10-07-2002 10:48 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 10-08-2002 12:40 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 500 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 44 (19277)
10-08-2002 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
10-07-2002 11:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What's Chicago got to do with it Edge? I've obviously missed something here.

An old story. In Chicago the graveyard vote swung a lot of political elections under Mayor Daley (the first one). I'm saying that your numbers seem a bit inflated.

quote:
The list is basically the ICR, AIG and '50 scientists with PhDs' book list.

Does this include 'dozens' of geologists? I personally know zero geologists who espouse creationism. And I do not count Henry Morris as a geologist. However, I will let you count Steve Austin twice. It seems appropriate. Maybe John Woodmorappe, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-07-2002 11:15 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-08-2002 12:58 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021