NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
Does anyone know how many different creation myths are the schools in Georgia going to teach?

​

---

ummmm..... only the one true creation myth -- dressed up as Intelligent Design or some such.This is the problem. This stuff isn't being taught in religion class. It is being taught in science class, as science.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
Which myth is the 'one true creation myth' or will the science classes test the probability of each myth to find out which one is true?

---

In the US, the creationist movement is pushed primarily by Christian fundamentalists. Sadly for them, the US has a policy of not teaching religious dogma in public school. And so the issue is disguised as 'Creation Science'What will actually be taught, I wager, is some form of Intelligent Design Theory, which in a nutshell is "The universe, and life in it, couldn't have came to be without having had the input of an intelligent agent at the wheel." Proponents claim to be able to detect the evidence of design but somehow can't make a case for it.If you search EvC you'll find a great deal on the subject. It come up a lot.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
I don't see anything pseudonymous in brother Adnan using the name Harun Yahya, either.

---

Is the guy's name Harun Yahya or not? If not then the name is de facto a pseudonym.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Thats not how it goes.

---

Yeah, it does. In English, it does work that way. If a person writes under a name that is not that person's birth/legal name, that person is using a pseudonym. It isn't usually used derogatively. To get that effect one adds something like "hiding behind a ..."

quote:

---

A pseudonym refers to a fictitous name

---

Gee... ficticious is ok with you but pseudo -- meaning false-- isn't?

quote:

---

whereas Harun Yahya is a nick adopted by brother Adnan on the basis that the name is the combination of the name of two Prophets, who, are not fictitous.

---

It is a pseudopnym nonetheless. The difference in English is that nicknames are usually given to a person by someone else while pseudonyms are usually consciously chosen by the person using it. Why are you trying to dress this up? The real issue is whether Yahya is hiding behind the name isn't it?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
He is not hiding behind the name. He does reveal his real name in About the Author section of his site.

---

That's fine by me. I believe that Andya feels that he is hiding, but I didn't comment on that. I only commented on your use of 'pseudonym' It sounds nit-picky, but really, it is all in good faith. It seemed to me that you were incorporating a misunderstanding of English into your dialog with Andya. I pointed it out. You are still free to believe that I am wrong about the word's usage, but at least you know have another perspective.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
If these old arguments were valid, and if they had stood up to the rigors of the scientific method, they would have been incorporated into mainstram science long ago. They haven't. This should tell you something.

---

but.... but.... what about the conspiracy of godless atheist devil worshipping Darwinists?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
So irreducible complexity in living organisms cannot be understood?

---

ummmm.... no it can't, by definition.

quote:

---

Is that a primitive view, as you state it?

---

I don't understand it so it must not be understandable. Yes, that is pretty primative.

quote:

---

The very phrase [b][i]Irreducible Complexity[/b][/i] explains its meaning, i.e, something that CANNOT be further simplified.

---

The only way you can know that something CANNOT be further simplified is if you have infinite knowledge of the universe. Do you have infinite knowledge?

quote:

---

Since I did not blow my credibility off the board, your accusation is moot.

---

The cambridge explosion is hardly a new discovery, so yes, your credibility has suffered severely.

quote:

---

Getting back to the subject, Darwin himself admitted that his theory CANNOT explain cambrian explosion (Origin of Species — 2nd ed. Chapter IX).

---

Darwin admitted did he? So 150 years old is a 'recent discovery'? Are you starting to realize why your credibility was damaged by your statements?Secondly, Darwin was not infallible. Creationists like to make him out to be superhuman, but that is just silly. Darwin, like any other scientist, proposed a theory that has since been investigated and refined by other researchers using new information that has surfaced IN THE INTERVENING 150 YEARS since Darwin proposed the ToE. Why is it that creationists can't understand that?Darwin was wrong about some things. Big deal!!! Pick any scientist and that scientist was wrong about something. It does not destroy the whole of that scientist's work.

quote:

---

And this, indeed, is an [b]explosion[/i] in the sense that it was an abrupt appearance of most of the complex invertebrates present in the fossil record.

---

Abrupt meaning.... tens of thousands of years? hundreds of thousands of years? This is far from creation ex nihilo------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
I have not mentioned anything concerning any suoernatural agency.......yet.

---

Don't be obtuse. Without an intelligent entity ID is sterile. ID requires an INTELLIGENT ENTITY. Therefore, you are arguing either supernatural forces or aliens. If not aliens, then supernatural agency. Which is it?

quote:

---

How you can supposedly know the arts of telepathy is bizzare to me.

---

... just makes you look bad.

quote:

---

Getting back, we do know how complexity can be simplified or reduced but ONLY IN CERTAIN CASES. There are systems that are irreducible complex and it is evident.

---

This, of course, is crap as I pointed out in my post #31. You cannot know this with haveing infinite knowledge of the universe.

quote:

---

Behe outlined the example of a mouse-trap and demonstrated how a mouse-trap is irreducibly complex. Apart from that; the ATPase molecule, bacterial flagellum, the cilium etc are irreduibly complex.

---

And Behe, has been refuted. There are ways to make more simple mousetraps out of Behe's IC mousetrap. And in fact there are bacterial flagellum which are less complex than Behe's IC flagellum.

quote:

---

How do you know where do I draw the line for something to be recent?

---

Sometime within the last century at least. But the real issue is that you phrased the assertation to imply that NEW discoveries were on your side. This is patently mis-leading and quite dishonest.

quote:

---

Differing ways to see things is what really makes us unique and we see things differently in different ways.

---

BS. You are trying to cover your error/deception, IMHO.

quote:

---

Something that is recent for one may not be recent for another and vice versa.

---

See above. [quote][b]It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.[/quote]Notice that the phrase is 'it is as though... ' not 'they did in fact...'

quote:

---

I doubt that. When Dawkins himself admits that the organism in the Cambrian era were "just planted there without any evolutionary history"

---

No, actually he doesn't. You are twisting the quote. Dawkins is writing colorfully, for better or worse. This is a pop-press book, not a scientific paper.

quote:

---

I really don't know how your asserted modern theory can describe "explosion" as "slow burn" since I am not aware of it.

---

You seem to be pretty much unaware of the whole of modern evolutionary theory, so it isn't surprising that you are unaware of this.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:

So, you were saying......

---

Repeating the same crap does not make for a good argument.Or, two misunderstandings do not make an understanding.

quote:

---

His book, "Mathematics of evolution" where he introduces the Panspermia theory as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

---

Panspermia isn't an alternative to evolution. It is an alternative to abiogenesis-- sort-of.

quote:

---

Why do you classify it as "God of the Gaps" book?

---

Yup.

quote:

---

As as I know, Dembski, who previously taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas and has a Ph.D in philosphy and Mathematics, can hardly be called "ignorant".

---

None of the credentials have any bearing on whether his book is or is not an argument from ignorance. This sentence, however, does illustrate your ignorance of informal logic.

quote:

---

So pop-press books by Dawkins, Grasse all spread lies? I am sure they bear some weight to my argument.

---

No, but the books are written for a lay ausdience and use a lot of metaphor and not many equations. Metaphor can be misleading.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
I agree but in what way have I repeated "the same crap" and what "crap"?

---

The trueorigins link you posted is creationist misrepresention of science.

quote:

---

I'll repeat my question: Why do you classify Behe's book as "God of the Gaps" book?

---

And I repeat my answer, "Yup"

quote:

---

How does it illustrate that?

---

Argument from ignorance isn't a statement about a person's general intellectual abilities. Remember, you defended him saying something like "he has this and that degree, so he isn't ignorant" Thus indicating a misunderstanding of the informal fallacy involved. Argument from ignorance is a argument along the pattern of "i don't know how it works/happend so it must be a miracle/a work of god."

quote:

---

Lame excuse to cover an acknowledgement. Try again.

---

What acknowledgement? And what excuse? Haven't you figured out the difference between a professional journal and a popular book?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
and what about that 11% that can't find the U.S. on a map?

---

hmmm... since the US is by far the largest part of one continent you ought to have about a one in five chance of finding it just by picking a large land mass. I guess that if one considers subcontinents, and includes the possibility that one may pick Mexico or Canada you get somewhere in the range of 1 in 9 or 1 in 10. Hey, whadaya know, just about 11%.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 11-20-2002]