Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Evolution is a Fraud
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 72 (401987)
05-23-2007 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Zhimbo
05-22-2007 8:34 PM


Re: evo crusher = evo fraud
Check out Amazon.com - Reviews Written by Evofraud: it looks like the same "review" on each book ...

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Zhimbo, posted 05-22-2007 8:34 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 72 (401988)
05-23-2007 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by PaulK
05-23-2007 9:01 AM


Re: The Challenge Before Us
And the reference to theonion.com is a clue. I wonder what happens if you order the book... is it real?

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 05-23-2007 9:01 AM PaulK has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 72 (401989)
05-23-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
05-23-2007 7:28 AM


Re: The Challenge Before Us
The problem ... but that a creationist who reads such books thinks they contains good arguments ... If a creationist reads that the argument about monkeys and typewriters is evidence against evolution, they'll buy it ... By this time Evolution Crusher realizes that the monkeys/typewriters example is not the strong point he thought it was, but he very likely has no idea why.
The problem is a lack of critical thinking and the ability to review a position for its real merits instead of its claims. Reading "EvoFrauds" reviews on Amazon I see no review of the critical points in any of the books: they are not reviews.
Lawrence Krauss (well known professor of astronomy and author of The Physics of Star Trek) believes that the problem with religion is one of education. Sam Harris (The End of Faith) counters that it is clearly not an issue of education when we have engineers and architects flying planes into buildings in the name of religion. I tend to side with Krauss. For those who are just normal religionists, I think a little education can go a long way. The terrorists in the over-used 911 example of Sam Harris are not normal religionists, but are more cultists, and we now know that cults are a rather complex psychological issue.
So how do we tell when we are dealing with cult mentality? Should education include a generic de-culting? Is there a hard line between cult beliefs and rational thinking?
I tend to believe that no amount of education can cut through the delusions that have been cultivated by (pick any) religious dogma unless the person involved already has questions. The problem is to reach those that are delusional and think they have the answers. We see a LOT of those here. Anything they find that in any way claims to support their views will be hailed as convincing proof no matter how full of falsehoods and misrepresentations it is.
Whether this book is a fraud or not, the problem remains: how to reach those behind the veil of cult beliefs.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 05-23-2007 7:28 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Taz, posted 05-23-2007 1:04 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 49 of 72 (402003)
05-23-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
05-23-2007 7:28 AM


Re: The Challenge Before Us
Percy writes:
By this time Evolution Crusher realizes that the monkeys/typewriters example is not the strong point he thought it was, but he very likely has no idea why. He might not even believe what we're telling him about it, that it doesn't even have any relevance to evolution. If he only comes away thinking, "They ridiculed the monkeys/typewriters arguments, the miscreants, what's the point in even talking to these guys," we should understand that this is not a good thing. The challenge before us is how to help Evolution Crusher understand why this is such a bad argument.
I think this is just a symptom of an even bigger problem with Evolution Crusher. The problem is his attitude toward this debate. Like the evil twins (you know, the two high school kids that think they're the only people on Earth who have ever read Kant, or at least a cliff's notes of Kant's work), Evolution Crusher seems to think that he is one of the few who know something about the history of the theory of evolution after the origin of species, and he probably got most of his information from a combination of cliff notes and creationist websites.
The challenge before us is how to help Evolution Crusher understand why this is such a bad argument.
And I think this is just treating the symptoms rather than attacking the disease. It's his attitude that needs to change before anything else. The realization that biologists and physicists are not a bunch of dumbasses will also help, but mainly he needs to change how he perceives the world, and making this possible is a far more challenging task than explaining to him why the monkey with a type writer is a bad argument.
So I do think that education is the way to go, and now it's only a matter of figuring out how.
I do, too, to a certain extend. Again, I must point to the high school twins as an example. Going to class with the attitude that you know more than the teacher/professor isn't going to help you learn much, and that is exactly the attitude that these two youngsters have. I have a feeling that Evolution Crusher has a similar, if not the same, attitude. He sees himself as being one of the elites who have stumbled onto arguments that most other people haven't seen before, including scientists. The monkey with the typewriter example made perfect sense to him, and how dare we, or anyone else, tell him that the example doesn't have much merit?
Being a former fundy and creationist, education certainly had a part in making a difference in me. But the biggest change didn't come from the fact that I had more knowledge than before. The biggest change was my attitude and my arrogance. Almost over night, I realized that I wasn't the most knowledgable person in the world, and that realization made me STFU and start listening to people.


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 05-23-2007 7:28 AM Percy has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 50 of 72 (402005)
05-23-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
05-23-2007 9:29 AM


Re: The Challenge Before Us
RAZD writes:
I tend to believe that no amount of education can cut through the delusions that have been cultivated by (pick any) religious dogma unless the person involved already has questions.
Whether this book is a fraud or not, the problem remains: how to reach those behind the veil of cult beliefs.
Speaking from personal experience and that of a very close friend of mine, the best way to "decultify" a person is not through science (or logic) but through moral beliefs. For me, the critical determining factor wasn't evolution or any of that confusing stuff. It was morality that made me abandon fundamentalism and ultimately the belief in god. After that, it was only a matter of time before how much bullshit I could see in creationist beliefs. Some time after my transition, I spoke with a friend whom I knew from high school and she had virtually the same experience.
So, I guess the best way, according to my personal experience, to decultify a person is to make the person understand basic human decency. Flying planes into buildings is not decent. Saying god hates you because you're gay is not decent. Introducing legislations to prevent people from pursuing happiness in life is not decent. Telling biologists and physicists that they are dumbasses is not decent. And you know the rest...


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2007 9:29 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 51 of 72 (402006)
05-23-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Evolution Crusher
05-22-2007 7:09 PM


excuse me? can you please explain your question?
what prejudices?
Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Evolution Crusher, posted 05-22-2007 7:09 PM Evolution Crusher has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 52 of 72 (402008)
05-23-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Evolution Crusher
05-22-2007 6:47 PM


There are a lot of strong points, so it is hard to narrow it down to just one.
Sutcliff cites a recent BBC article where students at a UK university tried to put the famous typing monkey theory into practice. Needless to say, the monkeys did not type anything that even remotely resembled Shakespear as Hardison predicted. They did not even type a legible word in English. However, the monkeys did succeed in using the computers as toilets.
To help you gain some understand of why that has nothing to do with evolution, please refer to the third chapter of Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker. Or you could refer to my "MONKEY" page at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/monkey.html, where I wrote my own "Weasel" program and then performed a mathematical analysis of the probabilities inherent in both the "single-step selection" model (what the "infinite monkeys" argument employs, in which the entire final product is generated at one time and must match the target in order to succeed) and in the "cumulative selection" model (which models evolution much better, in which multiple copies are made, each just a bit different from the parent, and selection occurs over several generations).
To further help you understand why single-step selection does not model evolution and cumulative selection does, just think of how life works and think about reproduction. Then consider the idea that evolution is the natural result of what happens when populations of individuals produce offspring.
BTW, here is my copy of the relevant quote from physicist Arthur S. Eddington's "The Nature of the Physical World: The Gifford Lectures", 1927:
quote:
... If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum. The chance of their doing so is decidedly more favourable than the chance of the molecules returning to one half of the vessel.
According to Wikipedia's article, "Infinite monkey theorem", at Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia, that was not at all refering to evolution, but rather to statisical mechanics. He was a physicist, after all.
According to the same article, in a 1931 book Eddington's rival, James Jeans, incorrectly attributed the monkey parable to a "Huxley", presumably meaning Thomas Henry Huxley. This became further corrupted to the claim that Huxley applied the example in his famous Darwinian debate with the Anglican Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce.
In short, the "infinite monkeys" idea didn't have anything to do with evolution and was only pulled in and adopted to the argument later on.
And also, since when did six constitute an infinite number?
The best point is the whole focus of the book; the author makes the unique point of breaking the tired old 'science versus religion' stalemate by forcing evolution to stand (or fall) on its own. Aside from a belief in God, Sutcliff does not mention religion at all. His arguments are soundly based on the weight of the evidence, not the consensus of the masses. I thought this was a refreshing approach.
Nothing unique about such a stated approach. That is exactly what "creation science" has been saying ever since Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968. That they are not using religion, but rather science in opposing evolution. That is what they were saying in order to get around the courts, but what they were doing was indeed religious, as ruled in the Arkansas trial of 1981. You see, the Arkansas "balanced treatment" law made the mistake of including a definition of the proposed "creation model"; the sister Louisiana law made sure to leave out that definition, but the damage had already been done.
Now, it seems most likely that Sutcliff is an "intelligent design" type, in which case he'd be much more stealthy about any religious basis to his position. But that still doesn't make his claim of "leaving religion out of it" any more true that the exact same claim being made by all the "creation science" activists for nearly four decades now.
Edited by dwise1, : added quote tags
Edited by dwise1, : Oops! Forgot second part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Evolution Crusher, posted 05-22-2007 6:47 PM Evolution Crusher has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 53 of 72 (402009)
05-23-2007 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Evolution Crusher
05-22-2007 6:53 PM


Sutcliff, in fact, says that evolution should not be banned.
Really? He opposes evolution as a fraud (judging from your presentation of it) and yet, you say, he says it should not be banned.
Could you please explain what he says and what he proposes?
Please note the basic creationist approach to opposing the teaching of evolution in the schools:
1. Try to get evolution dropped from the curriculum. Since this step is most likely to fail or to run into legal problems (see Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968), it is commonly by-passed.
2. Call for "balanced treatment" by giving equal time to "the creation model". Ever since the courts found that this "creation model" is actually sectarian religious doctrine (from the famous 1981 trial over Arkansas Act 540 and the trials over a similar Lousiansa "balanced treatment" law), this step has also usually been by-passed because of its associated legal problems. However, in wake of those defeats, the creationists then turned towards "intelligent design" (ID) as a replacement for their "creation model" and so we see ID being employed when this step is taken. Hence, while the "creation model" is a game of "Hiding the Bible", ID came into play as a game of "hiding the creationism" -- same game, only a bit stealthier and more deceptive.
BTW, it's also interesting to note that in those "balanced treatment" laws only required the teaching of the "creation model" if evolution was being taught. If evolution was not taught, then the "creation model" did not have to be taught. This would have achieved the goal of the movement, to prevent evolution from being taught. Or, as Paul Ellwanger, the author of the model bill upon which the Arkansas and Louisiana laws were based, had put it (in a letter presented as evidence in the Arkansas trial): "... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."
3. If equal time is not given for "balanced treatment", then push for the inclusion of "negative evidence" against evolution, arguing for academic honesty, etc. As it turns out, this is just a stealthy way to accomplish step #2, because that is all that the "creation model" is, just negative "evidence" (meaning that that evidence and those claims and arguments are false) against evolution.
EC, did I just happen to mention any of Sutcliff's position regarding the teaching of evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Evolution Crusher, posted 05-22-2007 6:53 PM Evolution Crusher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2007 4:49 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 54 of 72 (402013)
05-23-2007 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Evolution Crusher
05-22-2007 6:54 PM


Re: Gullibles unite
Not closed, but rather experienced. Many of us have been around the park a few times. Some have even been around long enough to have watched that park being planted and the changes it's gone through over time. You're not showing us anything new, just the same old stuff that we've seen presented over and over again. For example, I started studying "creation science" back around 1980 and was very active in the on-line discussions on CompuServe in the mid-to-late 80's. We've had a lot of time to discuss it and to study and to learn. And to learn the claims and to see them refuted.
How long have you been at it? Not trying to put you down, but if all you "know" is what you've read from creationist writers, then you've not gotten the whole picture.
True story here, because I personally witnessed it. Back around 1990, a creationist fossil shop opened in a local mall and the owner held a few "amateur night" debates where anybody could get up and present their case. One young creationist, probably not even 20 years old yet, got up and announced that he had brand-new scientific evidence that would blow all you evolutionists away (sound like anyone we know? look in a mirror if you're not sure): the speed of light has been slowing down. Immediately, half the audience (the "evolutionist" half) erupted into uncontrollable laughter and, between gasping for air and wiping away the tears, started to explain en masse to the kid that his claim wasn't new but rather was over a decade old already and was completely refuted almost as soon as it came out and here's why that claim is false. The poor kid just stood there in shock. He thought that he had in his hands conclusive proof that would crush evolution and he discovered that instead he was holding dog feces (fortunately, they weren't fresh). He was discovering the hard way that his religious teachers had lied to him.
As Scott Rauch, a former young-earth creationist, said:
quote:
I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.
That's why RAZD said in Message 2:
Thank you for proving that "there is a sucker born every minute" is still true.
Because that's what happens all the time in the creationist movement. Most of those claims have literally been around for decades and they have all been refuted, usually within a few years after they came out. And yet those false and refuted claims continue to be repeated and published by creationists without any mention that they had ever been refuted. Indeed, some creationists will even boast that no evolutionist had ever been able to respond to those claims.
I've also seen where a creationist will back off from a claim that's been conclusively proven wrong -- case in point is the ICR's moondust claim involving a "1976 NASA document, written well into the space age" that was actually written in 1965; No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html. However, nearly two decades later the ICR still prints and sells books that carry that moondust claim that they had stated they weren't going to use anymore. New creationists (the suckers born every minute) read those "new" books and they eat up the lies without ever being told what's wrong with them or that they've been refuted or that even the organization publishing that book had disowned some of the claims. That is, until they use some of those claims against somebody who does know those claims and their histories. And we both know how those encounters turn out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Evolution Crusher, posted 05-22-2007 6:54 PM Evolution Crusher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2007 3:57 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 64 by subbie, posted 05-23-2007 8:07 PM dwise1 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 72 (402014)
05-23-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by dwise1
05-23-2007 3:38 PM


Re: dwise1
dwise1...
I thought that meant "The Wise One" o.O
Until I just saw your name in that link...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2007 3:38 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2007 4:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 56 of 72 (402021)
05-23-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Evolution Crusher
05-22-2007 7:14 PM


EC, are you at all familiar with the history of anti-evolution, the opposition in this country to evolution?
At No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/EarlyBird.html I've posted a copy of the handout I provided for a presentation I gave at our church's adult forum held before services. Please refer to it for more detailed information; here I will only give a very brief summary.
Darwinism did fire up a lot of controversy among academics and church leaders when it first arrived in the 1860's, but within a couple decades it became either generally accepted or at least no longer seen as a threat to religion. However, this did not filter down to the masses who largely paid no attention to evolution until the early part of the 20th century when high school enrollment increased dramatically and more and more parents found their children being taught evolution in the science classes -- quite to be expected, since the textbooks were written by university professors. This, along with other social factors, led to a strong populist anti-evolution movement which culminated in victory for them in the 1920's. At that time, four states, including Arkansas, passed "monkey laws" which banned the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Another victory, the Scopes trial, also resulted in a public relations black-eye, after which (along with the death of their leader, William Jennings Bryan) they became much less visible. However, over the next four decades local anti-evolution groups continued to apply pressure to school boards and textbook publishers to keep evolution out of the schools.
Then along came Sputnik. Eager to close the "science gap", improvements in science education were proposed and implemented, including in biology. In particular, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) developed a series of new high school biology textbooks, written by professional biologists. These books presented evolution as the cornerstone of modern biology and in a prominent and straightforward way. These books were published in 1963 and adopted by Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1965.
Let's review the Arkansas "monkey law":
quote:
The Arkansas law makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state-supported school or university "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory. Violation is a misdemeanor and subjects the violator to dismissal from his position.
Since writing that handout, I've read exerpts that state that the offending teacher's creditials would be revoked permanently and they would be barred from ever teaching again.
Susan Epperson taught biology in Little Rock, Arkansas and was caught in a dilemma. She was required by the school board to use the BSCS books and if she didn't could be subject to dismissal. But if she did use them, then by the "monkey law" she'd be dismissed and would permanently be barred from her profession. So she and the Arkansas Education Association filed suit against the 1928 law. The court overturned the law, but the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld it, so in 1968, the case went before the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the law unconstitutionally served a sectarian religious purpose by prohibiting the teaching of evolution. This marked the end of the "monkey laws"; by 1970, all other "monkey laws" had been voided or repealed.
This led to the creation of "creation science". The anti-evolution movement could no longer use their religious beliefs as the reason for barring evolution from the schools, so they claimed, falsely and dishonestly, to oppose it purely on the basis of scientific evidence with religion having nothing at all to do with it. Now during the period from the 1920's to that time, a number of anti-evolution writers had created a body of literature which attempted to find scientific evidence or explanations or support for their literal interpretation of the Bible; evidence for a young earth and for Noah's Flood were very popular topics. A notable contributor in the 1920's and 1930's was George McCready Price who developed much of what Henry Morris later (beginning in 1961) would develope and promote as "Flood Geology". And in the 1960's a number of biblical literalists were already developing their own literature. So when the starting gun fired, they were ready and primed. They took their creationist literature and superficially scrubbed all explicit religious references (mostly the Bible quotes) and present that as "purely scientific". They had started the game of "Hide the Bible".
During the 1970's these "creation scientists" took their act on the road with their debates with which they'd drum up local support for "equal time" and "balanced treatment", all designed to get their false claims against evolution into the classroom in order to counter the teaching of evolution, or else to get the school boards to back down from teaching evolution under the threat of including their materials.
Around 1980, this resulted in "balanced treatment" laws being passed in Arkansas and Louisiana. In 1981, trial was held in Arkansas and that law was struck down as being unconstitutional because it promoted sectarian religion. The same happened soon afterwards to the Louisiana law. As a result, the creationists returned underground to continue to press schools and school boards on the local level, often employing the "stealth candidate" tactic of getting creationists voted onto school boards without their true intentions being revealed during the elections.
It was also at this time that new buzzwords surfaced, like "abrupt appearance theory" and "intelligent design theory." Now that the courts knew what "creation science" really was, the old dodge of "Hide the Bible" wouldn't work anymore. Now the new game in town was "Hide the creation science", a game played by using "intelligent design" claims and arguments.
This also brought into the fray a new generation of anti-evolutionists who claim to not be creationists. However, such "non-creationists" as Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe try to argue for including God in scientific explanations. True, they don't make the young-earth claims that the biblical literalists insist on, but their motivation is still religious. I came across an essay by Phillip Johnson in which he stated that his opposition to evolution is because "it leaves God with nothing to do." This indicates that his theology is basically "God of the Gaps", a false theology which is apparently widespread among creationists, judging by "creation science" rhetorics in general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Evolution Crusher, posted 05-22-2007 7:14 PM Evolution Crusher has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 57 of 72 (402022)
05-23-2007 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by New Cat's Eye
05-23-2007 3:57 PM


Re: dwise1
dwise1...
I thought that meant "The Wise One" o.O
David Wise. Common username generation practice is to take the first letter of the first name and prepend it to the person's last name, as in the "Brenda Utthead" joke in Dilbert. So my username at Hughes Aircraft in the mid-80's was dwise. We were doing some of our documentation on the new MacIntoshes, which were all floppy-based. So I labelled my data floppy with my username. When I graduated up to a second data floppy, it became dwise2 and the first one was renamed dwise1. Then one day a co-worker looked at my dwise1 floppy and started laughing.
When I signed up for AOL, I had to come up with a screenname. So I went with DWise1.
Until I just saw your name in that link...
'Splain.
Yes, that's one of my pages. Yes, it's based on research that I performed. Yes, I personally wrote to the ICR for the information on that claim. Yes, I personally went into the government stacks of the university library and personally pulled that document off the shelf. Yes, I wrote back with the truth that I had found and, yes, Gish ducked and dodged and then refused any further contact. Yes, I did try to write to Harold Slusher and, no, I never did receive a reply. Yes, it's all true.
Why? Do you have a problem with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2007 3:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2007 5:14 PM dwise1 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 72 (402024)
05-23-2007 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by dwise1
05-23-2007 3:01 PM


Ridiculous position
Sutcliff, in fact, says that evolution should not be banned.
Really? He opposes evolution as a fraud (judging from your presentation of it) and yet, you say, he says it should not be banned.
Judging also from the title of the book ...
This is an example of extreme cognitive dissonance in action: fraud should not be banned.
This is not logical: either it should be banned because it is fraud or it should not be banned because it is not fraud. Of course if we start banning actual frauds from being taught that would rule out all the creatortionista nonsense ...
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2007 3:01 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 72 (402026)
05-23-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Evolution Crusher
05-22-2007 6:47 PM


Monkeys apply for research grant.
Sutcliff cites a recent BBC article where students at a UK university tried to put the famous typing monkey theory into practice. Needless to say, the monkeys did not type anything that even remotely resembled Shakespear as Hardison predicted. They did not even type a legible word in English. However, the monkeys did succeed in using the computers as toilets.
This is utter nonsense. Monkeys typing on typewriters has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The monkeys actions (or lack of actions) do however disprove Einstein's theory of relativity. Sutcliff is just confused over which theory he has found to be fraudulent.
The latest news from that UK university is of interest. A university Ethics Review Board is investigating allegations that it was the students who defecated on the typewriters, and the monkeys who wrote the journal article about the experiment. They were alerted to this situation when it was noticed that the three lead authors of the article were named Bozo, Chuckles, and Curious George.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Evolution Crusher, posted 05-22-2007 6:47 PM Evolution Crusher has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 72 (402029)
05-23-2007 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by dwise1
05-23-2007 4:40 PM


Re: dwise1
Until I just saw your name in that link...
'Splain.
When I saw, in that link, that your name was David Wise, I realised that your avatar was a common naming convention, and that it did not mean "The Wise One".
That is all. It was funny from my point of view.
Yes, that's one of my pages. Yes, it's based on research that I performed. Yes, I personally wrote to the ICR for the information on that claim. Yes, I personally went into the government stacks of the university library and personally pulled that document off the shelf. Yes, I wrote back with the truth that I had found and, yes, Gish ducked and dodged and then refused any further contact. Yes, I did try to write to Harold Slusher and, no, I never did receive a reply. Yes, it's all true.
Why? Do you have a problem with it?
No, Jeez, I wasn't saying that, because I saw your link, that I thought that you were un-wise or something
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
FYI: I'm not a creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2007 4:40 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2007 5:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024