Jump to content


Photo

A Science Class On The Halibut Fish.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#61 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 June 2008 - 04:53 AM

I only said that I am sure that Dawkin's does not have to revert to Lamarkian evolution to describe Halibut evolution and it only sounds like it because he is explaining it to children.

View Post

Whether he has to or not, in your opinion, doesn't mean much. The fact is that's exactly what he did.

Now if you're correct & he doesn't have to do this, the question becomes one of choice. Perhaps he wants to make children like evolutionism by planting the idea that they can become whatever they please by wishing hard enough?

#62 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 01 June 2008 - 06:57 AM

Whether he has to or not, in your opinion, doesn't mean much. The fact is that's exactly what he did.

Now if you're correct & he doesn't have to do this, the question becomes one of choice. Perhaps he wants to make children like evolutionism by planting the idea that they can become whatever they please by wishing hard enough?

View Post


Sigh...one more time. He is explaining the TOE to children so he has watered down the technical details so that they can get some idea of what is happening. Perhaps he should have chosen his words better so that creationists on the web wouldn't be able to cry Lamarkian. My research group is part of an outreach program and we speak to kids at schools sometimes. I often describe space-time as a rubber sheet that "likes to bend itself for heavy objects". I can't explain it in detail because it is too technical for children so I end up with analogies that only go so far. If this argument was over GR and not the TOE you would be criticising me for misrepresenting GR as if I were presenting to scientists.

Can you give me an example of Dawkin's using Lamarkian evolution in a scientific work? If you can then I would criticize him as well.

#63 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 01 June 2008 - 07:06 AM

Then why is TOE being taught to children ? are not the future scientists being pre-programmed with TOE ideas ? The worse thing is not ID not being taught in schools, the worse thing is evolutionists hiding the weakness points of TOE.Evolution is taught not as a theory but as a proved truth, and that´s a lie.

View Post


This is getting irritating. If schools were teaching that fairies farted and life came into existence and mainstream scientists supported this and I thought it was stupid I would become a scientist and do the research and try and convince the scientific community. I would not go to schools and lie to the children and tell them that my ideas are on par with the fairy farting hypothesis because that would violate my sense of liberty from tyranny. If my ideas are correct it doesn't matter how biased the system is to the fairies because eventually my ideas would win because the evidence is stronger.

I am on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to history. I think by highschool kids should know the truths about Christopher Colombus, the genocide against tribes of Native AMericans, and slavery. All of these issues are completely glossed over and watered down in standard high school education and so children never really grasp just how terrible these things really were. They think Colombus was a hero rather than a brutal murderer, they don't realize the brutality of AMerica's holocaust against the Native Americans, and they imagine slaves like maids or farmhands because they see it in the movies. But I wouldn't dare to go into a school an try to teach this stuff even though it is already accepted by historians.

#64 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 01 June 2008 - 08:12 AM

This is getting irritating.  If schools were teaching that fairies farted and life came into existence and mainstream scientists supported this and I thought it was stupid I would become a scientist and do the research and try and convince the scientific community.  I would not go to schools and lie to the children and tell them that my ideas are on par with the fairy farting hypothesis because that would violate my sense of liberty from tyranny.  If my ideas are correct it doesn't matter how biased the system is to the fairies because eventually my ideas would win because the evidence is stronger.

I am on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to history.  I think by highschool kids should know the truths about Christopher Colombus, the genocide against tribes of Native AMericans, and slavery.  All of these issues are completely glossed over and watered down in standard high school education and so children never really grasp just how terrible these things really were.  They think Colombus was a hero rather than a brutal murderer, they don't realize the brutality of AMerica's holocaust against the Native Americans, and they imagine slaves like maids or farmhands because they see it in the movies.  But I wouldn't dare to go into a school an try to teach this stuff even though it is already accepted by historians.

View Post


Then, you are an accomplice of those lies.It´s not with help of people like you that the truth will be well succeed.The supposed Mainstream scientists are biased, they are not interested in truth, they are interested in keeping their religious worldview in schools, they will never be convinced by any evidence, because they dont want to be convinced.

#65 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 02 June 2008 - 05:29 AM

Those are the PhD's that don't count from your list - ones who haven't kept up with modern research by being actively involved in it.


The Scientists I listed above right Journals and Books. Of course not all of them but then again this is also a small lists.

Do you mean they aren't on Discovery or History Channel ?


Mainstream science simply is what is being published in the journals.  If you have lots and lots of publications on the TOE then it is in the mainstream.


There are lots and lots of publications about creation. Lots of them are written by Evolutionists just using the amazing "evolution" word to cover up what is plainly seen as your natrual everyday speciation and change "WITHIN" in a speices.

You could take some these Grand Evolutionary articles, replace just a few words that they mix purposely, and you have a great Creation Article.

From what I watch and read from, mainstream is Creation, not Evolution. You would have to actively search and ignore in order to make Evolution your Main stream.



Eitherway have you watched the short videos', I'm interested in what you think about Evo Scientists who change to YEC Scientists ? and How that is possible ?

#66 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 02 June 2008 - 07:37 AM

All quotes are from A.Sphere

I do have big hands - they contain thousands of folks directly involved in researching biological evolution - and way out on the tip of my pinky under my finger nail is your 77.

This is argumentum ad populem. I agree that as you have stated, you do like to argue, but arguing fallacies does nothing for your credibility.

This makes zero sense.  I have a Master's but I am working on my PhD therefore I am a graduate student.  I do scientific research and publish and go to conferences and present which makes me a scientist.  If I were to quit after my PhD and then 10 years from now start criticising GR people would laugh at me.  Those are the PhD's that don't count from your list - ones who haven't kept up with modern research by being actively involved in it.

And now you argue a fallacy of exclusion on a totally arbitrary basis. At least you're consistent with your logic.

Pins?  What pins?  :unsure:

The pins where you are trying to defend the "science" of hallibut "evolution" and you have nothing to offer but more fairytales like Dawkins did. If you want science to be taught in the schools then provide us with the science of the "evolution" of the hallibut. Don't give us anything that starts with "imagine this". Give the children science, not imagination, lies, and fairytales.

I didn't say that you couldn't comment or talk about it or protest about it or write songs and poems about it or name your budgie Kent,

Yes, and that's another red herring......

I said that you can't just insert ID into public schools until it has convinced a sizeable population of folks working directly in the field - not in a field that studies the breeding cycles of tadpoles or something though interesting not really related.  I can talk about it until I am blue in the face and so can you and we should because we learn.  However I didn't say that you couldn't comment - where did you get that?

Again, another strawman argument...You are restating our/my arguments as if I am arguing that ID should be taught in schools. We have not argued that. It is a strawman. Then you create another strawman restating that I said we/I couldn't comment on something. You are using one fallacy after another.

Strawmen?  Lets recap - I said that in order for science to be taught in public schools it needs to become standardized - in order for it to be standardized it needs to be accepted by a significant portion of scientists working in the field considered.  How is that a strawman?  A strawman is when you rephrase your opponents argument in a silly or simple way so that it is easy to rebuttle.  When did I do that?

I have listed several in the above comments, but in context I will recap.....
OriginMan provided you a list of approximately 200 well educated professionals who disagree with ToE. Then you immediately restated what he said to suggest that all of these people were Biologists. Here is your next response....

Most of these folks are not even biologists. A psychologist is not an expert in the field of biology. There is only a handful of people on that list that are biologists or geologists. If you take that handful and divide it by the number of folks that are biologists who accept evolution the ratio is very nearly zero.

You just created the strawman argument that basically says that only Biologists and Geologists are qualified to comment on ToE. Then you further compound your fallacy by trying to disqualify any Biologist on his list. Again, I agree you like to argue, but your fallicious nature is evident. That is why we have so much concern about the logic used to interpret evidence and data. If your logic is representative of the science community, then we are all in trouble.

You on the other hand took my argument and claimed that it meant that you can't comment on it unless you are a PhD biologist which is not what I said at all - thats a strawman.

Well you are the one who made this requirement, aren't you????? And then you have the audacity to discredit people who aren't actively publishing papers. Another fallicious requirement arbitrarily created by you.

I only said that I am sure that Dawkin's does not have to revert to Lamarkian evolution to describe Halibut evolution and it only sounds like it because he is explaining it to children.

It sounds like it, because he uses Lamarkian evolution. You can explain mutations to children. Have you ever heard of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Instead he taught lies, and he evangelized. He invoked ID as being non-intelligent to proselitize these children to believe a fairytale.

It typically does take a doctorate in Biology to be an expert in the TOE plus years and years of research, however I did mention in one of my post that some people (like Darwin) could get around this if they are really smart.


An "expert" (Audio (US) (help·info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment. - from wiki
I suggest you had better learn what an expert is. ToE includes many fields of study, not just Biology. And experts can disagree, and that doesn't disqualify their expertise. And active publications in the field are not the only qualification.

#67 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 02 June 2008 - 08:21 AM

Sphere Says:

I said that you can't just insert ID into public schools until it has convinced a sizeable population of folks working directly in the field


I'd say every God believer in the WORLD today, is part of the "population working directly in the ID field. "

That would be around 3 to 4 Billion people.

#68 Guest_kega_*

Guest_kega_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 June 2008 - 03:37 AM

Sphere Says:
I'd say every God believer in the WORLD today, is part of the "population working directly in the ID field. "

That would be around 3 to 4 Billion people.

View Post


thats pretty much every Catholic in the world! :rolleyes:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users