If we are all descended from Noah ...

Hey thanks for the source.Will have to go to library to read the book.Have a nice day------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
However, if you have not personally analyzed the questions asked, the distribution of the populations to which the questions were asked, and the raw data, you cannot really know if the polls that you believe in are credible.

---

WS: How many facts can anyone really believe without some element of faith in what other people offer? Practically nothing, since even our own eyes can deceive us. Much of what I was certain of as a youth turned out false. It's necessary to discover how to sort data accurately and quickly to get along in life with least interruption. Mathematicians derived the science of statistics, which is applied to numerical data, makign it possible to clean up data sets and supply a measure of confidence in what is observed and measured. But one must also apply some faith that the analysis is done properly. Statisticians are employed both by pollsters who are determined to assure high confidence in their service, and by watch groups, as well as some organizaions (the clients) who wish to double-check the data obtained considering they are paying royally for such service. he credibility of everyone involved in a poll is on the line. Once they begin using sloppy methods and draw attention of critics, they are found out and from then on dismissed as fringe or worse. Some corporate court cases are won or lost on the partial basis of sound statistical analysis of facts. Its a business that depends on accuracy and reliability. The money follows the good ones.

quote:

---

There is no criteria by which to measure. If the polls change,even radically, the polling organization (say one that is biased) can say that it was just the results they got that day..as statistical anomaly. You would have to provide evidence of an organization losing its accreditation for "messing up".

---

WS: I would estimate that the staticians on board would advise not announcing possible anomalies, which hardly contribute to trends. It is the client that might misuse the anomalous data, accepting the fringe as trend. There are no rules concerning how the client uss the results of the pollster except that a civil lawsuit could arise over misrepresentation of the pollster, so part of the credibility lies in the release of identity of the pollster, and the data, for analysis by critics. For a fee anyone can go view the data if the pollster is upright and open, unless the organization releases it freely. If there are elements of data that could damage the client's agenda they could just publish an article stating their own interpretation, ignoring the truth. It would be difficult for people to discern the truth, most accepting the statements of organizations they trust. That is why I don't trust any statement unless the pollster is identified. That way I can go to the pollster site and consider their own interpretation of the data. I no longer subscribe to their service for access to the data, finding they never got too far away from unbiased analysis, but relying on their free summaries. We subscribed (paid for by our party, for use by members of the volunteer staff) during the last presidential race to get the truth about what people were thinking. The problem boils down to what the client has to say about the issue and how they got their data.

quote:

---

...When I see a poll that says 70% of Americans support this or that I think it is heavily dependent on how the question is phrased. And the whole point of my posting the poll results I found was to indicate that you can find polls that support whatever you want and that using google is hardly a way to research a subject.

---

WS: If several polls using different questions independently are found in the average around that 70%, then statistically that is the truth. You can't fool the numbers, the reason other oganizations are willing to finance a competitive poll to make sure opponents are not influencing the public. Then if one comes up way different from the others, that one is suspect, stimulating even more polls. There is also the reality of an organization offering a completely bogus report based on no poll at all, just claiming "a poll" backs them up. No pollster name, no poll, just propaganda. I often take an excerpt of supposed news articles and run searches for their existence in places other than a cited website. All too often the articles turn out bogus, being originated by a crafty webmaster. I could supply this forum a completely ficticious "official" AP news release that lots of people would assume true, not bothering to check it out.

quote:

---

Every major magazine and newspaper dedicates significant space to American political issues. None of this is true in the US.

---

WS: We have those too, but little about Europe.

quote:

---

What is your criteria for distinguishing biased versus unbiased polling and please be specific.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

WS: Randomness of the sample, size of sample, and lisings of the questions asked in the sample, mainly. I also consider the client.

---

​

Do you actually check ALL of these points for all polls?

---

WS: Not any longer. Have you examined the policy statements of pollsters? Here's one that might help answer your questions and build a little confidence. Page Not Found

quote:

---

If it is an ABC TV interactive poll, I doubt it if the program caters to political liberal viewers (which is the norm for ABC), where relatively few conservatives would be aware of the poll. Naturally, the poll would reflect the liberal viewpoint. There are almost no conservative-led interactive polls in the news orgs, found mostly in paid programming.

---

Hmmm I have heard some people claim that all American media is either liberal biased or conservative biased i.e. CNN was called either the Clinton news network or the christian news network....I think ALL tv reporting in the US is crap because it is done in soundbites with no depth with overly simplistic explanations.WS: I agree except that CNN is decidely biased against Christianity, being a Turner company. They did support Clinton and his party, reporting many hours a day in the favor of the Democrats compared to minutes or mere seconds a day concerning Republican news. Fox is the most reliable at least in giving equal time.

quote:

---

that they accepted without complaint is not evidence of truth. And facts are not facts in this context. How many christian denominations would you expect to answer negatively to your example question by the way?

---

WS: They had to accept it or be found out by opponent groups looking for anything they can find to discredit churches. The numbers are undeniable. Barna (the pollster employed) wouldn't be part of such falsification. Part of the contract for the service includes some legal stuff that prevents their being used falsely.Evidently the responders were quite honest in their answers. If they were to lie they would surely have reported they pray and read their Bible daily, but the report revealed only a tiny fraction do that, which fits what we know locally.Wish to learn what Christians are saying now? http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/MainArchives.asp

quote:

---

However, you seem to think it is ok for the average person who got a high school education to dictate what is taught as science in the classroom in direct opposition to science and the scientific method.

---

WS: There is safety in numbers in many ways. Parents have a right to say what they want their children to learn, that they will be prepare to deal with life. I don't know of any effort to replace actual science with non-science. Christians are willing to set before their children both creation science and the science/scientific method side by side, allowing them to make up their own minds. There is risk they will adopt evolution and even atheism, but risk is necessary. It isn't reasonable to force people to study only a perspective that is accepted by others not willing to consider some viewpoints. Such an education is unbalanced. Are evolutionists afraid many will accept creation if the knowledge is presented in classrooms? If so, then what could be so weak about evolution that the risk of losing adherents is real? If there is no risk, then why not compare the perspectives regularly, that students can grow up equipped to deal with the debate effectively? I find that hardly anyone educated since 1970 here has a clue about science, sciene method, or evolution in particular, though educated by liberals and evolutionists who control the educational arena, using textbooks that promote those ideologies. The students emerge almost de-educated, often not able to fill out an employment application without assistance, unable to locate Iraq on a globe.

quote:

---

But for some reason when it comes to biology and especially evolution those same people suddenly feel they are experts on the subject when in fact they have no clue what the theory states or what the science is that supports it. It is opposition for oppostions sake rather than a rational response....I don't go to American Chemical Society meetings and protest the fall of the Bohr model because I think it somehow conflicts with my worldview.

---

WS: A tiny fraction of Americans enter the internet forums attempting to handle the topic. In day to day real life it just isn't present. The debate largely is confined to the internet and academia.[Removed an extra quote. This is much better, though. Thanks! --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: There is safety in numbers in many ways.

---

And ignorance. If your child was hit by a car would you poll your buddies for the best solution, or would you take that child to the hospital?This is special pleading.

quote:

---

Parents have a right to say what they want their children to learn, that they will be prepare to deal with life.

---

Right. And parents can teach their kids anything they like-- at home. School is not religion class.

quote:

---

Christians are willing to set before their children both creation science and the science/scientific method side by side, allowing them to make up their own minds. There is risk they will adopt evolution and even atheism, but risk is necessary.

---

Wow, very noble..... but.....This is a very biased gamble. By putting creationism in science class you actually give it an edge on evolution, not make it equal. If these kids have been taught the myth since birth at home and in church, putting it in school only reinforces the it. It does not lead to careful and reasoned analysis.Of course, why not teach all of the many and sundry varieties of creation myth as well. You could spend three or four years going over them, then your kids would be well prepared for life in the real world.

quote:

---

I find that hardly anyone educated since 1970 here has a clue about science, sciene method, or evolution in particular, though educated by liberals and evolutionists who control the educational arena, using textbooks that promote those ideologies. The students emerge almost de-educated, often not able to fill out an employment application without assistance, unable to locate Iraq on a globe.

---

This is funny-- the fundie creationist complaining about de-education! LOL------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: It was sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

---

right..... this was debated?

quote:

---

Consider this:
Mark 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

​

The Sabbath was past, Sunday was that day of the resurrection of Christ.

---

Wasn't Christ crucified on Friday? Hence the rush to get him off the cross? And he was in the grave three days, yes? At least, that is the prediction Jesus himself made. That does not add up to Sunday.

quote:

---

Acts 20:7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

---

So they chatted on Sunday. The rule has yet to be changed.

quote:

---

That same day was the pattern for believers to meet on

---

This practise being in violation of one of the ten commandments, yes?

quote:

---

Saturday having to do with the second day Jesus was in the tomb.

---

Again, what's with the math. Friday sundown to Saturday sundown == 1 day. Saturday sundown to Sunday sundown == 2 days. JESUS ROSE ON MONDAY!!! You guys have had it wrong all along.Of course, as above, this plays on the prediction Jesus made of his own death and resurrection. Though the gospels do all seem to agree that he was dead only a day and a half or so. Seems like, either Jesus was wrong or the Gospels all got it wrong. hmmm.... either way though, the bible has it wrong.

quote:

---

There was nothing to celebrate about that.

---

But there are those peskie ten commandments.

quote:

---

According to Paul there is no holy day or holy month in God's eyes.

​

Col. 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

---

Well, what da ya know. I stand corrected. It is in there.But what about Mat. 5:17-18?Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tiddle shall in no wise pass form the law, till all be finished.Have you not been arguing that some laws HAVE passed-- ie. no longer required? Does the Bible itself not argue such?Lets go to verse 19:Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kindom of heaven.....As per some of your previous statements, Jesus broke these laws, the apostles broke these laws and taught others to do likewise.Are you paying attention?

quote:

---

It is simply custom, not by commandment, we worship on any one day.

---

You are not paying attention. IT IS BY COMMANDMENT.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 09-21-2002][This message has been edited by John, 09-21-2002]

Again, what's with the math. Friday sundown to Saturday sundown == 1 day. Saturday sundown to Sunday sundown == 2 days. JESUS ROSE ON MONDAY!!! You guys have had it wrong all along.Well if god says that 2+2=5 than it very well does.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: There is safety in numbers in many ways.

---

And ignorance. If your child was hit by a car would you poll your buddies for the best solution, or would you take that child to the hospital?This is special pleading.WS: I doubt that. Consider this from Page not found - Nizkor"Description of Special PleadingSpecial Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S.
The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment."WS: I think the saying is one that is proven useful. Any nation reconsiders attacking another if they believe they are outnumbered significantly. Populations interact more efficiently, providing greater national security when their numbers are great, such as in China. No neighbor of China would consider a military action against them on land. In the world of statistics, expert mathematicians can dismantle almost any concept given enough data, forcing providers of data to do so in a statistically sound way. Most empirical data is consistent around basic physical laws and properties of matter, testable through statistics, at least in determining such measures as standard deviation. That is a statistical measure of the departure a quantity is likely (within a limited probability) to be found from its average value, plus or minus. It is the likely range of values around an average. That range is testable by observation to determine what "normal" is, as in analyzing finances. It's used to determine how wild risk or investment volatility is expected to swing from average high to average low around a long term average value. I look at that quite closely in playing the stock market, keeping me away from the more volatile markets that went sour. I like markets with narrow ranges of departure from average, with small steady gains. Statistics makes that possible, and kept my investments solid. I buy small stocks that make fifty cents at a time twice or three times a year. When a cheap stock moves from $3.50 to $4, I sell, keep the profit, reinvesting it when the low hits, then wait for another half or whole dollar that can be made. There IS safety in numbers, and prosperity.

quote:

---

Parents have a right to say what they want their children to learn, that they will be prepare to deal with life.

---

Right. And parents can teach their kids anything they like-- at home. School is not religion class.WS: Ah, but you know what? My kids went to college and dealt academic death blows to students that had no idea what creation science involved. They were totally unprepared for their perspective. I'd say those students were less than educated, while mine came away far more knowledgeable about the evolution perspective, better able to handle it with confidence.I don't think you have this in focus. "Creation science" can be presented without a single mention of anything religious, leaving the connection to God a natural deduction once the concept is understood. Since evolutionists resist the issue of origin of life, prefering to concentrate on the development of life forms after the initial incidence of life on earth, creationists can accomodate that without having to resort to anything the Bible says about where life came from. Both sides can avoid the origin question. Therefore, it appears to me that maybe the term itself ("creation science") is improper in that it suggests the concept is entirely concerning the Genesis account of origin of species. I don't have a better substitute.

quote:

---

Christians are willing to set before their children both creation science and the science/scientific method side by side, allowing them to make up their own minds. There is risk they will adopt evolution and even atheism, but risk is necessary.

---

Wow, very noble..... but.....This is a very biased gamble. By putting creationism in science class you actually give it an edge on evolution, not make it equal. If these kids have been taught the myth since birth at home and in church, putting it in school only reinforces the it. It does not lead to careful and reasoned analysis.WS: But the numbers indicate the split is about even, having students equally indoctrinated at home to believe evolution. If they are not so prepared, then why would parents who believe it not make sure their children have a grasp of it? It seems to me that if Christians wish to prepare their children with creation belief, that is a risk evolutionists must face, and should if they have confidence in their belief. I think it would require teachers presenting evolution to be better teachers, better prepared to meet the Christian challenge, in order to overcome that bias at home. But it appears now that isn't working, in that many teachers are realizing the validity of many creationist objections to evolution. In several states both perspectives are offered, even social science classes with the Bible as the only textbook, in PUBLIC schools mind you, with the OK from the highest court.From http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=40 consider this:The courts have always ruled that states cannot "require" the teaching of creation. The teachers have had the right to teach it. Even enemies of creation understand this."no statue exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before, and it can be taught now." Stephen Jay Gould, The Verdict on Creationism, New York Times, July 19, 1987, p. 34

quote:

---

Of course, why not teach all of the many and sundry varieties of creation myth as well. You could spend three or four years going over them, then your kids would be well prepared for life in the real world.

---

WS: You seem awfully biased, unable to prove the Bible or creation is myth. Regardless your opinion, things are changing, and I think a lot of that has to do with the sudden allowance of Islamic teachings that alerted Christians as to the legality of school board decisions to PERMIT teaching of creation science. If it is legal for Islamic studies, it must also be for the Bible to be brought back in. When the ACLU failed to object to Islamic encroachment, many people realized what was happening, that we had been duped many years. Many public schools have some Christian science teachers (I was one for 17 years) who are gladly taking up the challenge. It is only a matter of a decade or so that evolution will pass away, too difficult for the average citizen to retain accurately anyway.

quote:

---

I find that hardly anyone educated since 1970 here has a clue about science, sciene method, or evolution in particular, though educated by liberals and evolutionists who control the educational arena, using textbooks that promote those ideologies. The students emerge almost de-educated, often not able to fill out an employment application without assistance, unable to locate Iraq on a globe.

---

This is funny-- the fundie creationist complaining about de-education! LOLWS: Maybe funny, but true. I have a neighbor that is the chief librarian at a neighboring county library. When she began her career there in 1975, the local youth made it difficult for older adults to take part, lacking study space. Young people read books, magazines, whatever new came along. Now the new library is modern, with computers and internet, video rooms, museum type displays of local culture, sponsored summer field trips such as a hike trip studying edible wild plants, and a geology tour, lots of neat things. She says maybe 30 young people use the library regularly, while about a hundred retired adults almost live there, learning the internet and improving their knowledge level. Most young people come unable to look up a book in the card catalog or online, and many just can't learn how no matter how many times they are shown. Most of the 30 who do show up regularly do so to use the internet, but since there is a 20 minute limit and a waiting line, they are declining, especially since a filter system was installed. There are five computers reserved for students with assignments signed by teachers, but those remain unused most of the time. Chat and online gaming is the major use for kids, while adults are researching a wide range of topics. I would like to see a professional study of that nationwide.The most balanced library users among youth are home-schooled. Parents taught their children how to use it. Those kids are populating universities and doing very well, well balanced and handling life. I know that from pesonal knowledge; from government reports; from internet data from places like CAPE | Private School Facts for private school information; Homeschool World - "The World's Most Visited Homeschool Site" for homeshcool information and links.How much emphasis on evolution would you suspect? Not much. Why would they if the parents don't want it? urns out their children become successful without a keen knowledge of the entirity of evolution. How many careers depend on such knowledge? Why not study a perspective that helps them gain a great appreciation for who they were created to be? Well, they do, and they are fine citizens making things work out there like the great people before them that made America great, people who had almost no knowledge of evolution, and still don't. So cry all you want, but forget turning the tide. It's over your ankles already and the crest is a way off.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Again, what's with the math. Friday sundown to Saturday sundown == 1 day. Saturday sundown to Sunday sundown == 2 days. JESUS ROSE ON MONDAY!!! You guys have had it wrong all along.WS: Burial was Wednesday about sunset, the same time Thursday began. Jesus remained in the grave three days and nights, coming out Sunday. That particular Wednesday sunset to Thusday sunset was the special "High Sabbath", not the weekly sabbath Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Being crucified on a Wednesday, burial at sunset put him in the grave at the beginning of Thursday, not hanging on the cross illegally over any part of the High Sabbath. So it was that he was in the grave Thursday-Saturday, three days and nights as prophesied, arising Sunday early morning. Wednesday was over with come sundown, Thursday beginning at sundown, whereas our day changes at midnight. The Jews had the tomb guarded to make sure Jesus didn't come out on the weekly sabbath, compounding their initial error grievously in their minds. (Mt. 27)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
But there are those peskie ten commandments.

quote:

---

According to Paul there is no holy day or holy month in God's eyes.

​

Col. 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

---

Well, what da ya know. I stand corrected. It is in there.But what about Mat. 5:17-18?Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tiddle shall in no wise pass form the law, till all be finished.WS: The prophets said the old contract God made with the Hebrews would be ended and replaced with an entirely new one. That didn't mean the old would no longer exist, as in vanished, because those words are always there. But the very contract promised to come came, in Christ, who fulfilled the prophets. It's described in the NT like pitching an old jacket into the chest never to be worn again, wearing instead a new jacket. The old is still there, but discarded. All was finished on the cross when Jesus cried out "It is finished".Have you not been arguing that some laws HAVE passed-- ie. no longer required? Does the Bible itself not argue such?Lets go to verse 19:Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kindom of heaven.....WS: All had not been fulfilled yet. Jesus himself was subject to the old covenant until all was finished on the cross.As per some of your previous statements, Jesus broke these laws, the apostles broke these laws and taught others to do likewise.WS: The only "laws" Jesus btroke were the ones the Pharisees added.Are you paying attention?

quote:

---

It is simply custom, not by commandment, we worship on any one day.

---

You are not paying attention. IT IS BY COMMANDMENT.[/B][/QUOTE]WS: It was while Jesus was alive, but that commandment was voided since Jesus IS the promised Sabbath rest.

There, that clothes pin really works, I can't smell a thing now.

Thanks for the definition of special pleading, but how is what you are doing NOT special pleading?You are claiming that in the case of creation it is ok to appeal to public opinion, yet you would not appeal to such in cases such as the one I cited. This is pleading special status for the creation issue.One could also consider this an appeal to pulbic opinion-- argumentum ad populum, if you prefer-- which is a version of an appeal to authority.You see, usually, a faulty argument can qualify for several different informal logical fallacies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: I think the saying is one that is proven useful. Any nation reconsiders attacking another if they believe they are outnumbered significantly.

---

Ah.... this would be the fallacy of faulty analogy. I believe I could also argue that it is misdirection, or the fallacy of the red-herring.You see, while greater numbers can in fact be an advantage in physical conflict, it does not follow that it is advantageous in matters of what is and is not factual. Consider all of the patently false things that have at one time or another been considered true by the vaste majority of people. Did this belief make these things true? Did this belief make the Earth flat? Or make the stars crystals of ice on the firmament?

quote:

---

Most empirical data is consistent around basic physical laws and properties of matter, testable through statistics, at least in determining such measures as standard deviation.

---

Which empirical data and physical laws you accept? Just checking.As to the statistics lesson and the stock market: It is a repeat of the same fallacy as above, unless you are taking the position that truth is relative.

quote:

---

They were totally unprepared for their perspective.

---

This is a sad statement about US schools systems, but to argue that we introduce psuedo-science to fix the problem is ridiculous.

quote:

---

"Creation science" can be presented without a single mention of anything religious

---

Sorry, but no it can't. I challenge you to do so.

quote:

---

Since evolutionists resist the issue of origin of life, prefering to concentrate on the development of life forms after the initial incidence of life on earth, creationists can accomodate that without having to resort to anything the Bible says about where life came from.

---

Isn't this just sweeping things under the rug? Sad way to go about educating ourselves.

quote:

---

Both sides can avoid the origin question.

---

I don't want to avoid the issue. It happens to be important. But I have a question. You seem to be making the case that God created everything and then evolution took over. Now, avoiding the inherent difficulties of that position, you then wish to avoid the creation, or origin issue. Sounds like you essentially have evolution being taught in school. Something isn't making sense.

quote:

---

It seems to me that if Christians wish to prepare their children with creation belief, that is a risk evolutionists must face, and should if they have confidence in their belief.

---

But not in science class. It is not science, but religion. [quote][b]If it is legal for Islamic studies, it must also be for the Bible to be brought back in.[/quote][/b]And there you have it.... Islamic studies, not science class. I happen to believe that US schools should be able to get 10 times the information on the table that they actually do, and a good broad survey of religion and culture would be a great part of that. But not in science class, unless creationism can come up with some real science.

quote:

---

It is only a matter of a decade or so that evolution will pass away, too difficult for the average citizen to retain accurately anyway.

---

Is this a prediction?

quote:

---

WS: Maybe funny, but true.

---

Yes. Funny but true. And very sad.

quote:

---

How much emphasis on evolution would you suspect? Not much.

---

Again... at HOME.

quote:

---

So cry all you want, but forget turning the tide. It's over your ankles already and the crest is a way off.

​

---

LOL------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: The prophets said the old contract God made with the Hebrews would be ended and replaced with an entirely new one. That didn't mean the old would no longer exist, as in vanished, because those words are always there. But the very contract promised to come came, in Christ, who fulfilled the prophets. It's described in the NT like pitching an old jacket into the chest never to be worn again, wearing instead a new jacket. The old is still there, but discarded. All was finished on the cross when Jesus cried out "It is finished".

---

WOW.... now that is sophistry!!!!! Don't you get it? You've made the entire old testament fluid and pliable, and much of the NT as well. You are now free to pick and choose whatever you want. This is the problem.

quote:

---

WS: The only "laws" Jesus broke were the ones the Pharisees added.

---

Now this is interesting, perhaps a new topic.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: The prophets said the old contract God made with the Hebrews would be ended and replaced with an entirely new one. That didn't mean the old would no longer exist, as in vanished, because those words are always there. But the very contract promised to come came, in Christ, who fulfilled the prophets. It's described in the NT like pitching an old jacket into the chest never to be worn again, wearing instead a new jacket. The old is still there, but discarded. All was finished on the cross when Jesus cried out "It is finished".

---

WOW.... now that is sophistry!!!!! Don't you get it? You've made the entire old testament fluid and pliable, and much of the NT as well. You are now free to pick and choose whatever you want. This is the problem.WS: By sophistry I suppose you mean literally subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation? What I wrote is what the Bible reports. God made it clear to the subjects of the OT that if they didn't repent and obey Him, they would be allowed to utterly fail in the old system of law-based religion. However, He made it clear another covenant was on the way anyway. The time came when God divorced the Jews, allowed Israel and Judah to fall into captivity, the temple destroyed, but saving a remnant for the new covenant restoration. Reading from our perspective we know how it all ended, realizing what they had was a shadow of what came to replace it. The terms of their contract with God were for them, yet are valuable for Christians, having revealed much of the nature of God. Our new covenant, the gospel of Christ, was not an improved old covenant, but was entirely new based on the nature of God, not upon the law and ceremonial commandments. Those things acted as a schoolmaster bringing people to the point they could understand the new. It was necessary to demonstrate the world concept of pleasing God through mere religion is impossible. It all showed the need for a personal relationship instead, more like that between God and Abraham 400 years before the law was given. The law was added because of too many transgressions. What was added is what was replaced.

quote:

---

WS: The only "laws" Jesus broke were the ones the Pharisees added.

---

Now this is interesting, perhaps a new topic.WS: You might learn something. Somehow you need to find out what the Bible message is, for so far you have demonstrated quite a lot of ignorance of it. My guess is you have no idea what part the Pharisee sect had on facilitating the need to end the old covenant, having perverted it beyond possibility of recovery. They were the lawyers of that day, having assumed the role of enforcers of the religion, which had been so altered as to make the whole thing a great burden.
In order to discuss the topic you will need to first understand what God commanded, then compare that to what the Jewish community leaders were teaching and enforcing. It's a two semester course in most Bible colleges, and that only introduces the topic.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is only a matter of a decade or so that evolution will pass away, too difficult for the average citizen to retain accurately anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Is this a prediction?This alone proves that you're are wasting you time by "debating" with this deluded fool. If anything Evolution is proven to be true more and more eveyday now. If anything Creationism will be the one to fade away as the nonsense it truly is.The only way that evolution will "pass away" is if his kind actually happen to take over and impose their will on all and then the USA will be a tyranny under a theocracy and thus every one's individual rights and freedoms will be gone and pseudo-science will replace real science because the church can more easily control it.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-22-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]Thanks for the definition of special pleading, but how is what you are doing NOT special pleading?You are claiming that in the case of creation it is ok to appeal to public opinion, yet you would not appeal to such in cases such as the one I cited. This is pleading special status for the creation issue.[/quote]WS: If you are referring to your strawman argument (".. If your child was hit by a car would you poll your buddies for the best solution, or would you take that child to the hospital?"), then you are appearing desperate to wiggle out of the topic.

quote:

---

One could also consider this an appeal to pulbic opinion-- argumentum ad populum, if you prefer-- which is a version of an appeal to authority.

---

WS: Since evolutionists often claim most people believe in evolution, it must be assumed they too rely on polls, for there is no other valid way to estimate those beliefs. If so, they too are doing what you accuse me of. But, I am not putting the public up as an unqualified authority then appealing to their opinion. All I'm doing is establishing the fallacy of evolutionist claims, while pointing out the trend toward a rise in belief creation science is valid enough to be taught in public schools. Listening to you one would have to conclude polls are useless since the results include input from non professionals. I think you take such argument much too far, requiring only reliance on actual empirical data. In doing that, I think you selected a poll that went out of the way to misrepresent what is really going on. Your appeal to authority was one that is deliberately false, not even matching government reports which tend to bury trends until they can no longer be ignored. The USDE is admitting the trend my polls advance, and those reports are based on monthly reports collected from schools.Furthermore, if the public polls reveal creation science is on the upswing, that isn't making the case creation science is true or untrue, or evolution for that matter, but that it is being accepted as possibly true enough to be thought suitable to be taught alongside evolution.

quote:

---

You see, usually, a faulty argument can qualify for several different informal logical fallacies.

---

WS: I think you do a spendid job demonstrating that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: I think the saying is one that is proven useful. Any nation reconsiders attacking another if they believe they are outnumbered significantly.

---

quote:

---

Ah.... this would be the fallacy of faulty analogy. I believe I could also argue that it is misdirection, or the fallacy of the red-herring.

---

WS: Nope. It was an EXAMPLE of how people can benefit from the numerical analysis of situations, helping them avoid calamity. In that case, simple sums frequently prohibit possibility of war, if one tribe of 150 were to desire revenge against a tribe of 1,000. Better armed or not, the odds of success would be remote.

quote:

---

You see, while greater numbers can in fact be an advantage in physical conflict, it does not follow that it is advantageous in matters of what is and is not factual. Consider all of the patently false things that have at one time or another been considered true by the vaste majority of people. Did this belief make these things true? Did this belief make the Earth flat? Or make the stars crystals of ice on the firmament?

---

WS: Your appeal to a few pet anomalies doesn't support your premise. For instance, the vast majority of Americans believe their liberty is precious and worth expenditure of vast sums of revenue to protect. Who can prove that liberty is the best lifestyle or not? It doesn't matter, for most believe it enough to offer up their sons to preserve. For all practical purposes that makes the ideal true. Forget what philosophers have to say about it, for none will change their minds.
As for your examples, none of those beliefs affected real life except maybe to cause mariners to be extra vigilant when possibly approaching the edge of the world. They never did fall off the cliff, so what they believed was suitable, was truth as far as they were concerned, because what they believed fit what they saw or thought. It didn't matter that they didn't have it technically correct. They had explanations that satisfied, releasing them to think about other mysteries.The fact is that people here are beginning to reconsider the validity of creation, whether it is proven true or not, believing the case for evolution is not settled enough to eliminate another perspective.

quote:

---

Most empirical data is consistent around basic physical laws and properties of matter, testable through statistics, at least in determining such measures as standard deviation.

---

quote:

---

Which empirical data and physical laws you accept? Just checking.

---

WS: Science textbooks report those things. I adhere to all the science laws, some of the theories and hypotheses, including those that make a case against evolution, such as entropy of matter and energy. I believe the creation is winding down, not up. That happens to fit the statements in Revelation that God will roll it all up like a scroll and begin a new creation. It took thousands of years for scientists to arrive at that belief through observation of empirical data.

quote:

---

As to the statistics lesson and the stock market: It is a repeat of the same fallacy as above, unless you are taking the position that truth is relative.

---

WS: The same rules apply to you, making your argument fallacy. All I was doing was giving an example of the value of satatistics towards making decisions that work most of the time, clearly defining the boundary of excessive risk. You seemed to be totally negating the use of mathematics in evaluating empirical data. If so, then you might as well abandon science, for most science utilizes math, specifically statistics, to validate their measurements.

quote:

---

They were totally unprepared for their perspective.

---

quote:

---

This is a sad statement about US schools systems, but to argue that we introduce psuedo-science to fix the problem is ridiculous.

---

WS: It has become painfully clear to parents that what replaced what was considered proper education years ago has failed to educate. Evolutionists claim often their own have done a fine job, being in control of education, with academia overwhelmingly pro-evolution.
The notion creation science is "pseudo-science" is no longer valid since people BELIEVE it is valid science. Saying it is not has not changed their minds, has it? What I have seen lately is a total rejection of any science opinion purely on the basis of its origination from a creation scientist, not upon its merits. That was a fatal tactic that turns most people off, who can recognize disingenuous philosophy- the sophistry of academia. Rather than seriously consider the opinions of creationists, most evolutionists simply dismiss them with vain philosophy. That alone alerts thinking people as to why that happens, suggesting evolutionists fear the possibility creation scientists might just be right.

quote:

---

"Creation science" can be presented without a single mention of anything religious

---

quote:

---

Sorry, but no it can't. I challenge you to do so.

---

WS: A local highschool has distributed "Icons of Evolution" which is supplimental reading for HS biology. The ten questions are considered. The NCSE (Nat. Ctr Science Ed) response is also considered, which dodges the real issues, such as the "Cambrian explosion". Now the public schools are taking it up. A for instance of that is being noticed, which strengthens belief in creation without even mentionisg creation, it the NCSE reply that avoids Well's note the evolutionists can't explain how so many forms of life suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian, with no buildup as claimed about subsequent strata, the fossil record above Cambrian. NCSE distorts Well's point by making it appear Wells was claiming ALL groups of lifeforms are found in the Cambrian. The "All major animal groups" statement was presented as meaning those recorded in the Cambrian, but the same principle of fully formed organisms being in the fossil record holds true throughout the geologic time scale, too. No examples of partially formed organisms have been found, with all examples being fully functional. For that matter, no fossil would record all the facts about organs or tissues, requiring inference and hypotheses to explain what might have been inside a fossil. Too few fossils have been unearthed to clearly establish a complete transition of for instance dinosaur to bird. Some highly suggestive fossils are here, yes, but there is a cloud of guesswork around them. The net result of such manipulation of imaginations and distortions of comments by opponents of evolution only serves to convince people there is obviously a great cover-up about this subject, causing great interest in exploring creation science.

quote:

---

Since evolutionists resist the issue of origin of life, prefering to concentrate on the development of life forms after the initial incidence of life on earth, creationists can accomodate that without having to resort to anything the Bible says about where life came from.

---

quote:

---

Isn't this just sweeping things under the rug? Sad way to go about educating ourselves.

---

WS: Creationists have been trying to get evolutionists to tackle the issue of origin of life, but they insist on just picking up on only what became of the initial life form(s). They might cite the 1953 Miller experiment then drop it, complaining about how the Big Bang has anything to do with biological evolution anyway. Now evolutionists are trying to distance themselves from the astrophysical side of the issue. It's obvious there is some change in the evolutionist camps, mostly a narrowing of the subject in several CE forums, while creationsists seem to be wanting to take all the associated issues together.

quote:

---

Both sides can avoid the origin question.

---

quote:

---

I don't want to avoid the issue. It happens to be important. But I have a question. You seem to be making the case that God created everything and then evolution took over. Now, avoiding the inherent difficulties of that position, you then wish to avoid the creation, or origin issue. Sounds like you essentially have evolution being taught in school. Something isn't making sense.

---

WS: You appear to be missing key points. You offered a case that creation science is both pseudo-science and religion. I find there are textbooks that deal with that without mention of the Bible. There are contributors to modern textbooks that are challenging the notion of evolutionary development of species without mention of religion, taking the position of stasis subject to deterioration through extinction and reduced gene pool information. Several school boards are now demanding and finding textbooks that address the objections of creation scientists without reference to religion, since that reference is unnecessary. A search on the web turns up MANY books that do that which could easily be introduced as textbooks, and apparently are throughout the "Bible Belt" states which give a very slight treatment of evolution in public schools.

quote:

---

It seems to me that if Christians wish to prepare their children with creation belief, that is a risk evolutionists must face, and should if they have confidence in their belief.

---

quote:

---

But not in science class. It is not science, but religion.

---

WS: I'm not finding any reference to textbooks that bring in the Genesis account. Where does that happen? Provide proof, please. I just can't find evidence of it. What is called "Creation science" in classrooms is moatly anti-evolution, claiming stasis of all organisms throughout however long they have been here, admitting extinctions, etc. Where are teachers making the case with the Bible? Have you not read some of the creation science webpages reporting opinions of 'creation' scientists whose articles are not based on the Bible, but upon science methods as valid as what is used by evolutionists? There are more contributors lately that won't take a religious side at all, but do support anti-evolution. [quote][b]If it is legal for Islamic studies, it must also be for the Bible to be brought back in.[/quote][/b]

quote:

---

And there you have it.... Islamic studies, not science class. I happen to believe that US schools should be able to get 10 times the information on the table that they actually do, and a good broad survey of religion and culture would be a great part of that. But not in science class, unless creationism can come up with some real science.

---

WS: That is my point. There are some compelling arguments out there that cast a dark shadow on evolution, coming from respected scientists. When they step out in that, evolutionists write them off as having grown senile. More denial and unwillingness to consider all perspectives serves oly to dampen the evolutionist claims.[/b]-----
Edit by Adminnemooseus - I cleaned up the UBB quoting formating as best I could. It is a challenge, since it's useful to look at 1)The original quoted message; 2)The message I'm trying to fix; and 3)The message I'm trying to fix, in the edit window. All these require scrolling up and down, to see the entire thing.The problems I saw were {"(" and ")" used in place of the "[" and "]" in this discussion, to prevent it becoming UBB code itself}:
1)No "/" in the end of quote function (/quote) - This results in the display of nested quotes, that were not intended to be nested.
2)No UBB quote code at all, for a section.I may not have gotten it completely right, but it should be close.My suggestion is, use the "quote reply" only for short quoted messages. For smaller individual quotes, copy and paste, being careful to have the "(quote)" at the begining and the "(/quote)" at the end.I would also suggest that you try to cut down on the amount of bold text you use.Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-22-2002]

http://EvC Forum: People, let's show some restraint -->EvC Forum: People, let's show some restraintYour method of using quotes is very hard to follow, Wordswordman.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.