Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (9011 total)
57 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Post Volume: Total: 881,652 Year: 13,400/23,288 Month: 330/795 Week: 31/95 Day: 0/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Evolution Require Spreading The Word?
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 135 (335830)
07-27-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teets_Creationist
06-08-2006 7:01 AM


quote:
I mean, you already have it infiltrating the school system,

"Inflitrating"? Interesting word choice.

Would you say that Genetics has "inflitrated" the school system? What about Garvitational Theory? Has that also "inflitrated"?

quote:
Is there some sort of "Go and tell" command that evolutionists must abide by, to make sure that their propaganda gets spread?

If the Creationists were content to believe what they wanted to believe inside their churches, then this forum probably wouldn't exist. It is precisely because Creationists wish to replace science in the public schools with their religious dogma that the debate exists in the form that it does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-08-2006 7:01 AM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 135 (335834)
07-27-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Teets_Creationist
06-08-2006 7:53 PM


quote:
2.It is important to promote (teaching or defending could be ways of promoting) evolution, even though it doesn't matter if we believe it or not, because you want the public to be informed of something that really doesn't effect them greatly.

Well, no, the Theory of Evolution "affects" people just as much as the Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory of Matter, and Gravitational Theory.

I'd say the ToE affects people a great deal, actually, if you figure in medicine and genetic research, both of which rely heavily upon the ToE.

We're just saying that as regrettable as it may be, if you insist upon living in willful ignorance, go right ahead, just don't try to drag everyone else down with you via the public schools.

quote:
4.If creationists had their way, then much intellegence in the feild of science would be lost, so we have to close them out of it, in order to advance as humans.

Creation "scientist" don't do science, so nobody has "closed" them out.

If they would like to play by the rules of science, then they are more than welcome to participate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-08-2006 7:53 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 135 (335837)
07-27-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ikabod
06-09-2006 5:12 AM


quote:
they disagree , to the "taught" only one side of the debate is a form of brain washing ... how can you be expected to get a informed view ...

There is no scientific debate regarding if Evolution occurred.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ikabod, posted 06-09-2006 5:12 AM ikabod has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 135 (335969)
07-28-2006 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
07-28-2006 1:10 AM


Re: It's not science, imo
quote:
You hit on something. Evolutionism has a messianic and religious aspect to it. it's not just science, and imo, it's not good science. What it is though is a powerful propaganda tool, imo.

Randman, would you please cite a couple of Evolutionary Biology papers from the professional literature and give a brief explanation of how they deviate from being legitimate scientific papers?

Or, in short, show how they are not "good" science?

You can choose any paper from any related sub-field that you like from the hundreds of thousands in existence, or I can dig up a couple for you if you like.

Time for you to substantiate this claim or stop making it.

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 1:10 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:27 PM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 135 (335972)
07-28-2006 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
07-28-2006 4:06 AM


Re: It's not science, imo
quote:
Actually, the messianic term might have been a poor choice. What I mean is evolutionism has a missionary or evangelistic side to it. The evolutionist has a need for others to believe, and the way evolution is presented is a believe first, then understand later type of thing.

I strongly disagree.

I have no need for people to accept evolution on faith. I am more than happy for them to take in the facts which support the ToE and make their own analysis.

Tell me, do you object when people accept the Germ Theory of Disease or the Atomic Theory of Matter or the Theory of a Heliocentric solar System before they understand it?

quote:
Now, messianic in terms of being a saviour,....well, I think that does exist to a degree among many evos as they think evolutionism can save people from fundamentalism, etc....

The ToE can do no such thing.

Only critical thinking skills as opposed to blind faith and reliance upon reason rather than revelation can save us from a new Dark Ages that the Fundamentalist wish to return us to.

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 4:06 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:24 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 135 (336125)
07-28-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
07-28-2006 3:27 PM


Re: It's not science, imo
quote:
First, why don't you bring some papers that seek to prove evolutionary theory is true rather than assume it is true.

Can you do that please?


No.

My request had nothing at all to do with the ToE being correct, or assumed, or whatever.

Read carefully:

Randman, would you please cite a couple of Evolutionary Biology papers from the professional literature and give a brief explanation of how they deviate from being legitimate scientific papers?

What I have asked you to do is point out the shoddy science contained in those papers.

Hell, you could pick a Geology paper, or a Population Genetics paper, or any other field of science that you believe puts out crap science, and point out where the researchers went wrong in their statistical analysis, or their experimental protocol, or whatever.

Show me how the science is poor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:27 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 5:32 PM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 135 (336129)
07-28-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by macaroniandcheese
07-28-2006 5:15 PM


Re: A topic warning
quote:
evolution has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the idea of god except to say that nothing that is was created ex nihlo as is.

That is not preciselytrue.

Anything could have been created ex nihlo, as is with the appearance of having evolved.

It's that problem of people assuming they know what God/gods is/are like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 5:15 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 6:48 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 135 (336154)
07-28-2006 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
07-28-2006 5:32 PM


Re: It's not science, imo
quote:
Show me the papers then, and I will look at them and critique them.

Where are they?


Great, I'll start a new thread.

I will also put out a call to the scientists on this board who work in related fields to provide some links to online copies of papers that are appropriate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 5:32 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2006 6:16 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 07-28-2006 6:29 PM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 72 of 135 (336167)
07-28-2006 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by robinrohan
07-28-2006 6:33 PM


Re: No new thread?
quote:
I had more important matters to discuss with Schraf than this nonsense with Randman.

Had you been acting in a more responsible, caring way towards me, robin, I might feel some compulsion to pay you more attention.

But it's clear that you don't care about what I have to say, nor about me, so I don't care if you want to continue our discussion.

Therefore, you will have to suffer the consequences.

;)

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2006 6:33 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2006 7:21 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 73 of 135 (336169)
07-28-2006 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NosyNed
07-28-2006 6:29 PM


Re: To the scientists
quote:
I hope you would be able to judge best papers that are reasonably representative but also clearer than most. There's no need to make this harder for RM than it will be anyway.

Of course, I agree entirely.

After all, I want to be able to understand them too.

I've also put in the OP a call to all of the scientists on the board to provide some likely candidates.

Of course, I prefer that he bring up his own examples that he has surely found during his journey to the determination that the papers are poor scientific quality, but he was not forthcoming...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 07-28-2006 6:29 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 135 (336193)
07-28-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by iano
07-28-2006 7:24 PM


Re: No new thread?
quote:
Often times, when two people are attracted to each other but cannot have each other they fight. Its the only way they can express those deep passions

Or, the annonymity of an internet discussion board makes it much, much easier to be as blunt as you want to be to a total stranger without having to take the consequences one would ordinarily have to if one were actually speaking such things face to face.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by iano, posted 07-28-2006 7:24 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by iano, posted 07-30-2006 8:51 PM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 135 (336851)
07-31-2006 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by iano
07-30-2006 8:51 PM


Re: No new thread?
Just so you know, ian, I never "play for time" on these boards.

I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by iano, posted 07-30-2006 8:51 PM iano 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 © 2020