wande-
I presume Kara, and I'm sure she's a lovely little student, won't be planning a career in journalism.
You see wande- I told you there have been no scientists on the anti-ID side on this thread. I don't think I recall any of the main suspects ever even hinting that they might have a slight doubt. Do you?
Quote:He reels off the main arguments creationists use. "Personal incredulity; idleness - I'm smart and I don't understand this, therefore it must not be true; ignorance - I never learned this, so it must not be true; incuriosity - I'm comfortable with the status quo and don't want my view of the world challenged."
You see there how he does what is common on here. He asserts that those are the main arguments because they are easy to deal with. Like when we let the ladies throw darts from halfway.
And I daresay he couldn't deal with the last one if one could get the megaphone out of his hands.
What a farrago of assertions. How many gigs has he upcoming? Are you going to bring reports of all of them to our notice?
spendi is more concerned over format, rather than substance. We should issue him a blue pencil so he can freely edit everything that he contradicts (and it is everything so far--see a pattern here?)
The pattern exists alright.
It is the sheer volume and consistency of the stuff that requires editing and contradicting.
If one set a class a problem and they all got it wrong in different ways, like Tolstoy's unhappy families, the pattern would be in the students not the invigilator.
And I didn't contradict the Sherman quote so "everything" is incorrect I'm afraid and my compliment to the quote is only a few inches down the page and presumably fresh in the mind.
Oh kaloo callay, you didnt edit general Sherman.
Quote:If one set a class a problem and they all got it wrong in different ways, like Tolstoy's unhappy families, the pattern would be in the students not the invigilator.
Id never blame a proctor. However I would the teacher whose inability to attain a common level of communication merely presents an ego problem. I believe in teaching "up" to my students , but never out of sight. Thats a character defect of a low self esteem in the teacher. I sincerely believe that a teacher must strive to have his students become his master in a future tense.
By heck fm-
You do offer hostages to fortune.
It's a good job it's late and and I'm feeling a bit lazy.
wandeljw wrote:The Discovery Institute is proclaiming that the one line constitutes "critical analysis of evolution".
Ok. But that's a pretty thin thread they are clinging to.
I hope that claim satisfies some of their flock, because it's not fooling anyone else.
Nevada ID-iots roll craps:
Quote:Nevada antievolution ballot measure dead
by Nick Matzke
An Associated Press story in the Las Vegas Sun reports that the so-called "Truth in Science" initiative in Nevada has died. The initiative would have amended the Nevada constitution to require public schools to teach that "parts Of evolution are unproven theories" and various specific points disputed by "some" scientists.
The backer of the initiative, Las Vegas masonry contractor Steve Brown, stopped an effort to collect the 83,184 signatures that were required by June 20, 2006 in order to get the initative on the ballot.
According to the story, Brown "said he did not think his Truth in Science proposal would be passed by voters if it were on the ballot."
The text of the initiative is available at the website of the Nevada Secretary of State. The initiative followed recent patterns in antievolutionism, in that it did not use the terms "creationism" and "intelligent design," but instead required students to uncritically accept common pseudoscientific objections to evolution put forward by creationists regarding the origin of life, new genetic information, complex biological systems, alleged gaps in the fossil record, and the origin of sexual reproduction. Many of these arguments were refuted at trial in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case on the constitutionality of intelligent design, and short rebuttals are found in the Judge's decision (PDF) in the case ...
rosborne979 wrote:wandeljw wrote:The Discovery Institute is proclaiming that the one line constitutes "critical analysis of evolution".
Ok. But that's a pretty thin thread they are clinging to.
I hope that claim satisfies some of their flock, because it's not fooling anyone else.
I made the mistake of reading some of the institute's press releases. I wasn't fooled, only annoyed.
timberlandko wrote:Nevada ID-iots roll craps:
Good. I guess all that money I keep giving to the NCSE is paying off
wandeljw wrote:I made the mistake of reading some of the institute's press releases. I wasn't fooled, only annoyed.
I sometimes read them for entertainment. I like the Dr. Dino site for entertainment as well. It's like watching the three stooges build a house, you just know at some point that it's all going to come tumbling down.
Did Dr Dino have anything to say about the Tiktaliik paper?
In wande's latest despatch from the front lines this-
Quote: the increasingly conservative Kansas Republican Party.
is the main, perhaps the only, point of note.
I cannot help but wonder if Miss Fiske is not prompted at home to make her effort. However, if she believes that she can become a physicist, while avoiding the biological sciences in her studies, i suggest that she is practicing self-delusion. Given the motivation behind the concept of intelligent design, i would also wonder just how she proposes to maintain a creationist world view while studying physics--she is bound to encounter conflict.
Set, It seems there are many so-called scientists out there that believe in "creationism" while practicing their research in biology and physics. How they are able to reconcile the contradictions are a human mystery of how the mind works. I have come to describe them as having "calcified brains;" their inability to separate religious' dogma against the obvious observations.
I think that it is possible to reconcile the notion that there is a deity who created the cosmos with scientific research. A problem arises when one attempts to reconcile scriptural literalism with science. My experience in tracking down credentials is that those who purport to be scientists while insisting upon a young-earth, scriptural literalist point of view either do not genuinely have scientific credentials, or do not practice a field of study (which usually excludes all of science) which brings their belief into conflict with their discipline.
More than thirty years ago, when i briefly worked in civilian hospitals after getting out of the army, i knew a physician who contended that there was stratigraphic evidence for the biblical flood story, and he kept photographs of cliff faces in the valley of the Tennessee River which he asserted "proved" the flood story. As a practicing physician, whose speciality was radiology, such a contention did not bring his training (which had been acquired in the 1940s) in science into conflict with his scriptural literalism. One does wonder, though, today, how a practicing physician who has kept abreast of the literature, could willingly deny a theory of evolution. What his opinion of evolution was, however, i never learned. When he got started, i usually had a "well, i've gotta run now" moment, and left the nurses and aides to his tender intellectual mercies.
That anyone could determine a world flood from "...stratigraphic evidence for the biblical flood story, and he kept photographs of cliff faces in the valley of the Tennessee River which he asserted "proved" the flood story" can't be all that intelligent. Arriving at the conclusion of a world flood from one small area of the planet lacks any thinking skills.
all hed have to do was , while he was taking hisw start pictures, walk further out from the rivers trace until the river deposited sediments ran out.
Hey , welcome back CI,
