Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-18-2019 2:01 AM
182 online now:
dwise1, PaulK (2 members, 180 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,623 Year: 2,660/19,786 Month: 742/1,918 Week: 29/301 Day: 1/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
16Next
Author Topic:   What I have noticed about these debates...
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 238 (52013)
08-24-2003 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 7:30 PM


I will tell you what I have learned as far as that goes (and no I am not interested in the offer just the truth.)A kind would be as such as a dog, a dog is not a cat nor is a dog a fish it is a dog a kind.

But you haven't answered my question. How do I tell if two similar individuals are in the same "kind" or not? I mean, a dog is a dog, but a dog isn't a wolf. Yet Kent Hovind would have us believe they're the same "kind". Why?

Black and brown bears are clearly bear "kind", but is a panda bear?

"Kind" can't simply mean "any classification of animals we have a popular name for." After all, I could just as easily say that bears and wolves and dogs are in the same kind - the "mammal" kind.

So at this point the debate was interrupted and he showed his degree from the college he went to.

"Patriot University"? It's not a university. It's a mail-order degree mill. They have no accredation, so any degree you get from them counts no more than if you made it yourself at Kinko's.

I can also start quoting from others.

Here's a radical new idea - why don't you come up with your own arguments? Or at least deliver their arguments in your own words. I don't want to argue with The Collected Sayings of Kent Hovind. I want to argue with you.

Philip E. Johnson

This guy I've heard of, at least. He's a lawyer, not a biologist. Why is his opinion relevant?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:30 PM Cybereagle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by alicelove, posted 09-26-2005 5:32 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 238 (52014)
08-24-2003 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 7:35 PM


eventually I plan to read Charles Darwin's book for the express purpose of being able to know everything evolutionists think.

Well, that's a start, but it's hardly "everything evolutionists think." For starters, a lot of Darwin's conclusions are racist. And genetics wasn't known to scientists at the time, so Darwin's model of heredity has a bunch of holes.

I mean, if you wanted to know everything about a modern theory, why would you pick up a book published in 1859?

If you want to know the theory, pick up Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." That'll set you straight.

Oh and what do ya'll think about Steven J. Gould? If Dr. Hovind is such a fraud why did the leading evolutionist in ths country refuse to debate him?

Precisely because Hovind is a fraud. Gould thought it was pointless to waste time debating with liars that could be used to actually further the knowledge of science. Hovind is such a joke that Answers In Genesis won't even touch him. He's little more than a humerous annoyance. Would you debate with a mosquito?

On the other hand Gould was never too shy to testify when creationists took school districts to court to prevent the teaching of evolution.

Gould didn't refuse to debate Hovind because he was afraid of him. Gould refused to debate Hovind because Hovind was so very, very far beneath him, and not even worth his time.

[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-23-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:35 PM Cybereagle has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5375
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 153 of 238 (52016)
08-24-2003 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 7:30 PM


2.Walt Brown Ph.D

Real PhD, mechanical engineering, MIT, no less.
Real, really, seriously crackpot ideas and online book at http://www.creationscience.com/
I can spend hours finding and shooting down the absurdities, misrepresentations of real scientific papers, and just plain ol' stupidity on that website. The guy reads like a satire, but, sadly, he is apparently sincere. Delusional, but sincere.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:30 PM Cybereagle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2003 12:37 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 238 (52017)
08-24-2003 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Coragyps
08-24-2003 12:33 AM


So, two of Cybereagle's three heroes aren't biologists. Can somebody google the third? I have to go to work. (See you guys tomorrow morning.)

My guess is, we're gonna be 4-for-4 non-biologists. When I want to know about taxes, I ask an accountant. When I want to know about life (the origins of and otherwise) I'll ask a biologist, not a guy (Hovind) whose fake degree is nominally in education. (If you were going to get a fake degree to argue with evolutionists, why not at least get one in biology? Honestly!)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Coragyps, posted 08-24-2003 12:33 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Asgara, posted 08-24-2003 4:39 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 155 of 238 (52023)
08-24-2003 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by crashfrog
08-24-2003 12:37 AM


Hi Crash,

Quick google for Charles Liebert....
BS in chemistry from Fairleigh Dickenson University
founding directer of PACER,
Peidmont Assoc for Creation Education and Research
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
Does some work for Ken Ham and AIG.

------------------
Asgara

"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2003 12:37 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by alicelove, posted 09-26-2005 5:33 PM Asgara has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 214 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 156 of 238 (52032)
08-24-2003 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 7:30 PM


quote:
A kind would be as such as a dog, a dog is not a cat nor is a dog a fish it is a dog a kind. Whether or not it can interbreed is not necessarily the issue a doberman and a chuwawa could never breed, but they are still a dog.

So, are my housecat and a Bengal tiger the same 'kind'?

Are Humans and Chimpanzees the same 'kind"?

Are field mice and capybaras the same kind?

What about hippos and horses?

Fish and dolphins?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:30 PM Cybereagle has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 214 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 157 of 238 (52033)
08-24-2003 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 7:30 PM


quote:
Philip E. Johnson

Here is a great review of "Darwin on Trial" by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/resources/165252685546.asp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:30 PM Cybereagle has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3239 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 158 of 238 (52036)
08-24-2003 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 7:35 PM


Cybereagle,

I plan to read Charles Darwin's book for the express purpose of being able to know everything evolutionists think.

You're going to have to read a lot more than that, my friend. Genetics, population genetics, palaeontology, molecular systematics, cladistics, comparative anatomy etc etc. Evolutionary theory has come a long, long way since Darwin penned Origins. This is why creationists find it so easy to misunderstand the ToE, they haven't exposed themselves to the evidence & placed it within a logical framework.

Mark

------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:35 PM Cybereagle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by truthlover, posted 08-25-2003 1:36 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2103 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 159 of 238 (52092)
08-25-2003 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by mark24
08-24-2003 11:27 AM


You're going to have to read a lot more than that, my friend.

However, for the record, as another of those ex-YEC's, "On the Origin of Species" is a powerful, powerful book. Admittedly, I was already converted to evolution when I read it, but it gave me a perspective I'd never heard on any internet debate board or in any other book.

Nowadays, with all the info we have, most papers on evolution begin with the past and work toward the present. Darwin begins with the present and works toward the past. In doing so, he makes all the debates about radiometric dating and gaps in the fossil record irrelevant. He fills the world around us with missing links and passes on information so fascinating that it feels terrible not to be able to repeat it.

It's still my favorite book on evolution, and, in my opinion, the most convincing one out.

Not to dismiss anything you or Crash said. Obviously we've come a long way since 1859, and "Origin of Species" won't catch you up on biology. But what a great book! And I don't think Gould or Dawkins are as convincing as Darwin. He did write his book to convince creationists, after all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by mark24, posted 08-24-2003 11:27 AM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4519 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 160 of 238 (52103)
08-25-2003 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 7:35 PM


quote:
I plan to read Charles Darwin's book for the express purpose of being able to know everything evolutionists think.

Everything we think? You will be over 150 years behind the times...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:35 PM Cybereagle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by A_Christian, posted 08-25-2003 1:52 PM Mammuthus has responded

  
A_Christian
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 238 (52166)
08-25-2003 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Mammuthus
08-25-2003 4:37 AM


And evolution isn't about thinking at all, but agreeing. If it were
about thinking----creationism would not be considered a threat by the
ACLU...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Mammuthus, posted 08-25-2003 4:37 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by mark24, posted 08-25-2003 2:10 PM A_Christian has not yet responded
 Message 165 by crashfrog, posted 08-25-2003 4:06 PM A_Christian has responded
 Message 186 by Mammuthus, posted 08-26-2003 4:50 AM A_Christian has not yet responded
 Message 187 by Mammuthus, posted 08-26-2003 4:51 AM A_Christian has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 162 of 238 (52168)
08-25-2003 2:09 PM


Forum Guidelines Advisory
I don't want this thread to roll out of control, so just a reminder that I'm here...

------------------

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3239 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 163 of 238 (52169)
08-25-2003 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by A_Christian
08-25-2003 1:52 PM


Other way around, mate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by A_Christian, posted 08-25-2003 1:52 PM A_Christian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Admin, posted 08-25-2003 3:10 PM mark24 has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 164 of 238 (52174)
08-25-2003 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by mark24
08-25-2003 2:10 PM


Forum Guidelines Advisory
Ahem!

Drive-by posts - not welcome (in other words, taking your shots at the opposition without discussing anything is discouraged)

Discussion - welcome.

Last time I checked I wasn't a potted plant. Participants in this thread might want to take note.

------------------

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by mark24, posted 08-25-2003 2:10 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by mark24, posted 08-25-2003 8:29 PM Admin has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 238 (52182)
08-25-2003 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by A_Christian
08-25-2003 1:52 PM


creationism would not be considered a threat by the
ACLU...

Why not? I assume your position is that "if evolution were unassailably true, then the ACLU would have nothing to fear from creationists."

I don't see how that follows. One one hand, you'd have accepted scientific theory. On the other, a well-organized, well-funded movement to suppress scientific knowledge to schoolchildren and, by extension, adults.

What's not to fear about that? If I were the ACLU I'd have my panties in a big knot about that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by A_Christian, posted 08-25-2003 1:52 PM A_Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by A_Christian, posted 08-25-2003 4:51 PM crashfrog has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019