Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,748 Year: 4,005/9,624 Month: 876/974 Week: 203/286 Day: 10/109 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush promotes ID
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2918 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 36 of 195 (229282)
08-03-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mick
08-03-2005 11:57 AM


Bauer writes:
With the president endorsing it, at the very least it makes Americans who have that position more respectable
It must be logical fallacy day. This is an exquisite example of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The belief in ID is respectable because a famous person (as opposed to a scientist known for his careful research) believes it. Kind of like thinking that the opinions of famous ball players (or actors) on politics are respectable not because they know something about politics but because they are famous ballplayers/actors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mick, posted 08-03-2005 11:57 AM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Brad McFall, posted 08-03-2005 6:53 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2918 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 38 of 195 (229291)
08-03-2005 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tal
08-03-2005 1:41 PM


Re: Should ID be censored?
Tal writes:
Fish magically turning into birds is pretty superstitious IMO.
Indeed it is. Of course the TOE makes no such claim. So that makes your argument a strawman, doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 08-03-2005 1:41 PM Tal has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2918 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 39 of 195 (229294)
08-03-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by FliesOnly
08-03-2005 2:48 PM


Re: Should ID be censored?
FliesOnly writes:
Will you be proposing that it (ID) be taught in a science class room?
Where else would you have anatomically correct models for teaching the concepts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by FliesOnly, posted 08-03-2005 2:48 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2918 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 94 of 195 (229732)
08-04-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
08-03-2005 4:16 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
randman writes:
Google the Discovery Insitute and various creationist science organizations and check out what they are doing for yourself.
Here we go again. Randman, you were asked to back up your claim that ID is science. Instead you put the onus on the sceptic to see whether ID work is science. No that is not the way it works. And real scientists don't just have websites and books - they publish their results in peer reviewed scientific journals. Can you cite an ID article published in a peer reviewed scientific journal (Creationist "journals" don't count).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 4:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 08-04-2005 12:13 PM deerbreh has not replied
 Message 104 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 9:20 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2918 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 97 of 195 (229742)
08-04-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by New Cat's Eye
08-03-2005 4:52 PM


Re: My opinion
Catholic Scientist writes:
My point is that you can teach ID in a science class along with evolution, just like they did with the universe/atom models. Why ID and not some other mythical creation story?, because there aren't a bunch of people trying to get those stories into the classroom. Just let it be mentioned, I don't think its a big deal.
Two problems here. First, ID is a stalking horse for creationism so in that sense it IS a big deal.
Second, popular opinion is not a proper criteria for what gets taught in the science classroom. If you want to 'mention" ID, do it in a comparative religions class.
If a student raises the question all that needs to be said is "it is not science, so we won't discuss it here. Ask your parents or your pastor about it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2005 4:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2005 12:25 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2918 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 139 of 195 (231051)
08-08-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by randman
08-08-2005 10:53 AM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
randman writes:
Could it not be that massively higher numbers of transitional fossils are indeed predicted, and thus the numbers of theorized transitionals, taken as a whole, would be strong evidence against ToE.
In fact, no, that is not the prediction. Fossils of any kind are rare because fossilation itself is a relatively rare event. Most animals and plants decompose completely when they die. When we do have a fossil it is usually only part of the organism - in the case of animals, typically the skeleton, exoskeleton or shell. Soft body parts are hardly ever fossilized. So if a change occured there it wouldn't even be recorded. In spite of that, there are many transitional fossils. Here is a link that summerizes the transitional fossils if you are interested.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by randman, posted 08-08-2005 10:53 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Tal, posted 08-09-2005 10:07 AM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2918 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 141 of 195 (231307)
08-09-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Tal
08-09-2005 10:07 AM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
deerbreh writes:
Fossils of any kind are rare because fossilation itself is a relatively rare event.
Tal writes:
Flood?
Is that a question? I don't understand the point you are making.
I presume you are pointing out that fossils are formed in sediments deposited by flooding but nevertheless, it is still true that fossilation is a relatively rare event. Many animals and plants buried in sediment still do not fossilize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Tal, posted 08-09-2005 10:07 AM Tal 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