Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 9:25 PM
136 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge (3 members, 133 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,446 Year: 3,483/19,786 Month: 478/1,087 Week: 68/212 Day: 29/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   You are hereby appointed Commissioner of the Dept. of Education for Tennessee
Volunteer
Junior Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 21
From: Tennessee
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 16 of 26 (441380)
12-17-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2007 11:14 AM


Re: My response
Not only that but you almost convinced me to move out of Tennessee, but I just couldn't leave all this great "moomshine".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2007 11:14 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2007 12:08 PM Volunteer has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 26 (441384)
12-17-2007 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Volunteer
12-17-2007 11:39 AM


Re: My response
Not only that but you almost convinced me to move out of Tennessee, but I just couldn't leave all this great "moomshine".

I've only had Tenneessee moonshine twice, but both times it was surprisingly smooth for how potent it was.

Still, I don't know if that is reason enough to stay with such outrageous propositions as the one in the OP (Original (or Opening) Post, Message 1)

Its just utterly ridiculous.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Volunteer, posted 12-17-2007 11:39 AM Volunteer has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 18 of 26 (441390)
12-17-2007 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Volunteer
12-17-2007 10:59 AM


In my opinion the courts are helping to create an interest in the creation theory with today's students.

Well, it's not the place of the courts to determine whether or not there should be an interest in creationism. All they have been asked to do is determine whether teaching creationism in the public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

And, as a side note, we "evolutionists" aren't afraid for people to look into creationism for themselves. We aren't out to prevent other view points or to censor objectionable opinions. What we want is that the public schools themselves remain neutral in regard to promoting or discouraging religious beliefs.


It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Volunteer, posted 12-17-2007 10:59 AM Volunteer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Volunteer, posted 12-17-2007 2:45 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Volunteer
Junior Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 21
From: Tennessee
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 19 of 26 (441414)
12-17-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chiroptera
12-17-2007 12:38 PM


"What we (evolutionists) want is that the public schools themselves remain neutral in regard to promoting or discouraging religious beliefs".

I couldn't agree with you more. My problem is that one must display as much faith to believe the theory of evolution as creation. One example: Nebraska man was scientifically built up from one tooth.
Now that requires faith! And as a side note - As I'm sure that you are aware, Nebraska man was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. I don't want to go through all six of the finds but there were problems with all of them. The Missing Link has never been found. And until it is one must exercise a lot of faith to believe the theory of evolution.

Let's see, faith, that's your objection to the creation theory isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 12-17-2007 12:38 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AdminNosy, posted 12-17-2007 3:01 PM Volunteer has not yet responded
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 12-17-2007 3:18 PM Volunteer has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 12-17-2007 3:23 PM Volunteer has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 20 of 26 (441416)
12-17-2007 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Volunteer
12-17-2007 2:45 PM


Topic Warning!
For all: Do not let volunteer drag you off topic in this thread.

For Volunteer:
Before you post anything here I suggest you use the search function and find what has already been discussed about what you intend to say.

So far you have made a number of assertions based on what lies you have been told by various creationist web sites etc.

Once you know the true story of Nebraska "man" you might understand better what does on.

If you really believe there is no evidence of the development of the genus Homo and the preceding forms then you should open a thread devoted to that topic. In your opening post (OP) you should list all the "so-called" (to you) human ancestor fossils and why you think they are not good evidence. You can not criticize something until you demonstrate you know something about it.

It is clear from what you have posted so far that you, in fact, no very, very little about the subjects discussed here. What is worse, what you think you know are lies that the various creationist organizations willfully spread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Volunteer, posted 12-17-2007 2:45 PM Volunteer has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3308
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 21 of 26 (441418)
12-17-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Volunteer
12-17-2007 2:45 PM


I couldn't agree with you more. My problem is that one must display as much faith to believe the theory of evolution as creation. One example: Nebraska man was scientifically built up from one tooth.
Now that requires faith! And as a side note - As I'm sure that you are aware, Nebraska man was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. I don't want to go through all six of the finds but there were problems with all of them. The Missing Link has never been found. And until it is one must exercise a lot of faith to believe the theory of evolution.

Nebraska Man was brought up and discussed recently in another thread here, though I forget which one. Here is an article that goes into the history of that find: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html.
The pertinent facts are that:
- the tooth was found.
- it had unusual wear patterns that led to its being misidentified as being from an anthropoid ape.
- there was not much agreement over various interpretations of the tooth
- it was an artist who extrapolated those attempts at interpreting the tooth and had reconstructed "Nebraska Man", patterning him after Java Man (Homo erectus).
- further finds revealed the true nature of the tooth.
- those findings were published and Nebraska Man was no more.

That is, he was no more except that creationists keep digging him up and parading him around as a problem for science. Actually, Nebraska Man is an excellent illustration of how science is self-corrective. Contrast how science handled Nebraska Man with how creationism handles a multitude of false claims that it continues to make even though they were soundly refuted decades ago; eg:
- the "shrinking sun claim", including utterly false claims about the effects of the sun's loss of its mass
- the leap-seconds claim, by which they greatly inflate the rate at which the earth's rotation is slowing down
- the moon-dust claims, including the one based on Slusher's work in which he lied about his NASA source and introduced extraneous factors into his calculations that inflated his calculations by a factor of 10,000
- the false claims about protein comparisons between species
- the false claims about the "non-existence" of transitional fossils
- misrepresentations of evolutionary theory

Science makes mistakes and is subject to hoaxes, but because it deals with the evidence and seeks further evidence, it is self-corrective. Mistakes are corrected and hoaxes are exposed and dealt with -- by scientists, not by creationists. Being found to have made serious mistakes is detrimental to a scientist's reputation and to his career. Being exposed as having perpetrated a hoax is fatal to a scientist's career.

Creationism makes mistakes and has more than its share of hoaxes, but because it does not deal with the evidence -- except to either ignore it or misrepresent it -- it is not self-corrective. Mistakes are not corrected and hoaxes are not exposed. And when a hoax is exposed (never by a creationist, BTW), that creationist's reputation and career remains unaffected within the creationist community. And if creationists believe that those false claims sound convincing, they will continue to use them even knowing that they are false.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Volunteer, posted 12-17-2007 2:45 PM Volunteer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 12-17-2007 3:23 PM dwise1 has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 22 of 26 (441419)
12-17-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Volunteer
12-17-2007 2:45 PM


My problem is that one must display as much faith to believe the theory of evolution as creation.

In a previous post, you made the comment that recent court decisions would make students interested in learning about creationism outside of the class.

I was just pointing out that this is neither relevant to the court decisions, nor a problem for those of us who accept the theory of evolution.


It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Volunteer, posted 12-17-2007 2:45 PM Volunteer has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 23 of 26 (441420)
12-17-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by dwise1
12-17-2007 3:18 PM


Very very close Dwise1
Not so wise. I am tempted to suspend you for an hour but just a warning this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 12-17-2007 3:18 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by dwise1, posted 12-17-2007 3:34 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3308
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 24 of 26 (441425)
12-17-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by AdminNosy
12-17-2007 3:23 PM


Re: Very very close Dwise1
Sorry. You had posted after I started replying, so I didn't see your warning until I had posted my reply.

At least now he has a link to follow and learn the real story of Nebraska Man.

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 12-17-2007 3:23 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 25 of 26 (441551)
12-18-2007 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
03-22-2007 3:14 PM


(1) Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?

No. It is evident that not everything in the universe was created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being. For example, the Pyramids were created through purposeful intelligent design by the ancient Egyptians, who were not a Supreme Being. Snowflakes are created through the blind workings out of natural laws, which are not a Supreme Being, nor purposeful, nor intelligent.

If the answer to Question 1 is "No" please accept the General Assembly's admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators, and others.

You flatter me. While the question of whether the Universe was created by a Supreme Being through purposeful, intelligent design has "long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators, and others", the question of whether, in addition, everything within it was created by the same Supreme Being through purposeful, intelligent design hardly presents the same challenge.

To put it in theological terms, the question of whether God is the primary cause of the existence of the Universe has nothing to do with the question of whether there also exist secondary causes operating within his Creation.

I hope that this helps to clarify your thoughts on this issue.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 03-22-2007 3:14 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2001 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 26 of 26 (441613)
12-18-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Volunteer
12-17-2007 10:59 AM


However, I personally believe that education is a kind of continuing dialogue,and a dialogue assumes ... different points of view.

which is great. except you have to learn the truth first before you're prepared to deal with dialogue about alternate viewpoints of any variety. this isn't a religious discussion, it's one of fact. you need to learn the truth of evolution and the anthropological histories of various peoples before you are properly equipped to deal with inter-cultural creation myths.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Volunteer, posted 12-17-2007 10:59 AM Volunteer has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019