Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

Thank you Dynamo321!
I have a Chick tracks misrepresent the intellectual veracity of scientists. Your post is a perfect example of what my topic is about. After watching a Hovind video you know enough background information to make the claim: You are convinced by a Hovind video? Please, do yourself a favor and read critiques of his information before citing it, you will save yourself a lot of heartache. If you choose not to, please check out the referred topic, your insight there would be appreciated.Edited to add message links, thanks AdminNosy!This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 11-25-2004 06:11 PM

Thanks for the links, instructions and advice. I may do so when I am more awake. You are great! Thanks again

to show other msgs and threads there is a short cut UBB code.
Windsor castle Message 1 see the UBB code is on link when you are editing to see how to use them Chick tracks misrepresent the intellectual veracity of scientists is what you want.Use the raw text box at the bottom of the post to see how it is done.You get the numbers by looking at the what the browser says when you point to the msg or thread.

Dear Lithodid-Man,
I like your logic. You are right with regard to Darwin's explanation of how Natural Selection works, and I apologize for any insults that might have been inferred about people not reading their Darwin. However, I was referring more to Darwin's predictions about patterns of variation that would be predicted given (1) special creation (applicable to ID) or (2) descent with modification (DwM). For example, ID would predict that the most similar environments should harbor the most similar species, regardless of how distant are those environments, whereas DwM predicts that there should be a correlation between proximity and similarity due to common ancestry and migration. It is true that Old World and New World deserts harbor plants with superficially similar adaptations, but cacti are specifically NW and euphorbs are OW, and these are fundamentally very different groups. As another example, Darwin allows that creation would not predict a hierarchical classification, but rather one that groups organisms in constellations. (I think this prediction could be debated, but it is a positive prediction.) There are many such predictions in the last few chapters of the Origin.
Of course, different brands of creationism may not allow any such predictions, arguing that nobody can predict the mind of God. In such cases, the "hypothesis" of creation is untestable and must be disregarded by science. But brands of creationism like "scientific creationism" do allow that predictions can be made about patterns in nature.
Students need to understand how scientific hypothesis-testing works (and why it requires multiple, competing hypotheses to work) AND why some hypotheses are untestable and thus are not considered by science. It is simply my experience that students want to understand these things, that they do not get any chance (in American schools) to think like scientists (too busy taking multiple-guess exams), and that they want to discuss why creationism is inadequate. For these reasons, bringing a discussion of creationism into classrooms is imperative. Ignoring it only adds to ignorance.
Yes, I'm the nematode guy. Thanks!

Interesting what people will read into things that may be read into.
Much may be learned from the behavior of wolves. For instance, the practice of destroying a pup that does not conform to pack rules.
As for the icon? It is in honor of Redwolf, a War Chief of the Cherokee, and my father, brother, friend and chief.
And you really don't like spiders?

I watched it.
Thank you.

Phobia would indicate a fear. Can't think of a suffix meaning dislike or hate at the moment.I read arachnophilia as "love of spiders".I myself like spiders though I hope I never get bitten by a brown recluse.lfen

I'd like to suggest that you use paragraphs with a blank line between. It makes it easier to read and can help you force yourself to work on one idea per paragraph. Thanks

you're contradicting yourself. you said you do not identify with a herd or pack, and here you are identifying with pack behaviour. lfen just about nailed it.

duplicate post.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-26-2004 04:29 AM

you are correct sir.although i don't really love spiders, it's more of a joke. internet - web - spiders - arachnids. i've consistently used this name almost everywhere for the last few years. it's also easy to remember and doesn't require numbers on the end anywhere.but i'm not the only one with the thought. the only two other instances of the name are:1. an html-editor. ironically, i edit html... in notepad. i actually ran into a page made with arachnophilia linked to on this board recently.2. a webbot. a webbot is a search device, a script that traces paths and connectivity between webpages. a search engine such as google is a kind of webbot. this is different than a chatbot. i know this, because i looked it up when people started sending me instance messages asking if i was a robot.no, i am not a robot.but generally, if you run into this name on the internet, and it's not one of those two things, it's me. and i am all over the place.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-26-2004 05:05 AM

quote:

---

social animals, a need to belong, for reasons of safety, etc. But that does not mean that individuality is, must be, should be, surrendered. I do not identify with herd or pack.

---

Whtehr you identify with a pack or not is irrelevant to your identity as a pack animal. For example, you have whole systems of signals for others of your own specieis - smiles, frowns, head-shakes etc.

Could we please try to keep on the topic of the thread instead of exchanging barbs?

I hope so, too

You see identification, I see a simple statement.