Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science
CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,441-1,4601,461-1,4801,481-1,500 ... 2,421-2,439 next last
To: tallhappy
You don't understand what a LINE or SINE or repeating element means or are.

Lie #10.

You don't understand chromosomal structure.

Lie #11.

This is the problem. You are talking about something you understand only as words you've read about but you don;t know what they are.

Lie #12.

It always comes down to this.

Yes, it does always come down to you making baseless false accusations you are unable to substantiate.

1,461 posted on 02/15/2006 11:44:58 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1440 | View Replies]

Lurking ...

1,462 posted on 02/15/2006 11:46:38 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Creationists are like a palsied person touching a cactus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1461 | View Replies]

To: xzins

lol.


1,463 posted on 02/15/2006 11:47:45 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1460 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
I know you think this is a cop out or "lies" etc...

But if you don;t know a sine is a repeating element you just don't get it. By the way you talk one can tell you don't really understand it.

As I said your interest is commendable.

1,464 posted on 02/15/2006 11:50:05 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1461 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I'm sorry, but you overlook the important fact that the student must qualify based on their SAT score.

I have not "overlooked" that at all. Of course they must. But the point is that a school can have a ton of high-scoring SAT students, and still end up with fewer National Merit Scholars than a school which has fewer high-scoring SAT students, if the poorer school more aggressively works to get their qualifying students *applied* than the better school.

Thus my original point: The number of NMS scholars is a poor indicator of educational quality, since there is a factor involved (application rates) which can significantly affect the results for a given school. Instead, let's just compare SAT scores *directly*, and not number of NMS scholar finalists as you have attempted to do.

They qualify based on the test, and then further consideration is based n a combination of tests, essay, academics, etc.

...none of which will results in an NMS finalist if the student or school drops the ball and doesn't bother to ensure that every qualifying student actually SENDS IN AN APPLICATION.

Not only that, but you ignore the fact that you said, A much better indicator would be raw SAT rates or some other indicator

Where in the hell do you hallucinate that I "ignored" what I wrote?

Raw SAT qualifies them in the first place.

Yes, I know. But that still doesn't change the points I've raised. If you're still unclear on the point I'm making as to why NMS numbers are not necessarily a good indication of school quality due to the statistically biasing effect of self-selection, try reading it again until the little light goes on.

1,465 posted on 02/15/2006 11:54:20 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1458 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"I don't really mind that theistic evolutionists get their notions from "reading" nature. If that's what they say, then fine. That's where they get it.

They just don't get it from reading the bible which is the foundation of the Christian faith."

But the Bible is demonstrably wrong on a number of scientific matters (age of earth, claiming Noah's Ark could have possibly held all the species of animals (or even a tiny proportion of them), the genetic bottleneck that would have resulted even if the Ark could have held 2 of each *kind*, the impossibility genetically of all humans having been descendant of just 2 people (or of 8 after the flood) and so on.) There simply is no other choice for a Christian ; either you reject the clear evidence that exists from the physical world, or you adjust your understanding and interpretation of the Bible.


Again, this is all irrelevant to the point I made. Christianity isn't the definition of theism; theism does not require a sacred text.
Evolution isn't atheism, and you have not even come close in demonstrating it is.
1,466 posted on 02/15/2006 11:55:07 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1460 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
I know you think this is a cop out or "lies" etc...

Because they are.

But if you don;t know a sine is a repeating element you just don't get it.

If you think that I ever said that they weren't, *YOU* don't get it. On the contrary, I stated that they were. Work on your reading comprehension, and/or stop lying about what I've written.

By the way you talk one can tell you don't really understand it.

By the way you talk one can tell that you frequently lie, and can manage to totally screw up even elementary issues in biology and randomly post citations to papers which you apparently didn't read and/or understand.

As I said your interest is commendable.

Your behavior is not.

1,467 posted on 02/15/2006 12:03:30 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1464 | View Replies]

To: xzins; CarolinaGuitarman
Since theistic evolution can only be read from "nature," then we are not dealing with the God revealed in the Bible.

...we are dealing with the God revealed by reality.

Most believers in the Bible prefer to reconcile the two, under the assumption that the one described in the Bible is the same one as the God that matches reality.

You, however, denounce this as a "fallacy".

Others prefer to simply reject reality if it contradicts *their* personal reading of what they think the Bible is saying. For example:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record,"

-- AnsersInGenesis, Statement of Belief

There's a word for people who deny reality when it contradicts their personal beliefs...
1,468 posted on 02/15/2006 12:09:51 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1460 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Work on your reading comprehension, and/or stop lying about what I've written.

I'd respond by saying work on your writing skills.

What are the differences we have? Try to get away from constant shrill screaming lies.

What point are you making. Where do we differ on a specific subject or topic?

1,469 posted on 02/15/2006 12:22:04 PM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1467 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

It does change the point that you wrote.

Besides, this is an easy enough debate to settle.

We can look at the number of SEMI-FINALISTS for the Nat'l Merit Scholarship. They are made same by virtue of their test scores.

I'm betting that the public skools around here would sell their own sister to Satan to get one additional NMS semifinalist. And unless he/she has a criminal record, they will send that kid's file up to the next level. (And even if they do have a criminal record which is sealed for juveniles)

Do I have to go look this up, or do you just want to believe someone who's lived in this area a long, long time?


1,470 posted on 02/15/2006 12:34:34 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1465 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Actually, I'm the Prof. And that was a professional as in "for pay" project.

Live with it.


1,471 posted on 02/15/2006 1:01:11 PM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1442 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Dr. Eckleburg; P-Marlowe
There simply is no other choice for a Christian ; either you reject the clear evidence that exists from the physical world, or you adjust your understanding and interpretation of the Bible

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

"Let God be true, and every man a liar."

As you can see, it requires no such thing that I reject evidence. My attitude is very simple, I have confidence that the future will reveal more and more that will continue to demonstrate that God is correct.

I do not reject; I hold it in abeyance until the explanation arrives.

Didn't some geneticist recently postulate "Eve" as the mother of humanity?

The bottom line: (1) The Bible is right; (2) The bible is wrong.

Why would it be right in its overall message, if it is wrong in its foundational message? That is, Christ's atonement was necessary because of the fallen race of man descended from Adam.

If Adam is a "myth," then what does that say about Christianty? And what does it say about evolution's real attitude toward Christianity.

On the one hand....myth. On the other hand...factual knowledge.

It says that evolution is actually atheistic.

1,472 posted on 02/15/2006 1:03:34 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1466 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
I didn't fabricate anything. Simply stated the obvious. If it contradicts your personal opinion, doesn't make what I wrote a lie.

Whew. Testy Evos. Lighten up -- there is no personal God of the Bible you've got to worry about who sees your heart and inner thoughts at all times -- right?
1,473 posted on 02/15/2006 1:06:11 PM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1297 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
Jesus is science. It's the Evos and lib atheists who try to project a schism between the One who made the universe and the logic of the universe.

Try to prove He wasn't who He said He was.

And lighten up all you Evos.

Since you don't believe in a personal God who can see your heart and knows your inner thoughts, what's bugging you so much?

I think I know.
1,474 posted on 02/15/2006 1:12:06 PM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1343 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It does change the point that you wrote.

No, it most certainly does not.

Besides, this is an easy enough debate to settle. We can look at the number of SEMI-FINALISTS for the Nat'l Merit Scholarship. They are made same by virtue of their test scores.

That would be a somewhat better indicator, but even that will still bias towards schools which push their students to take the PSAT in order to qualify for the NMS. Trying to qualify for the NMS is listed as one of the most common reasons for taking the PSAT/NMSQT , and indeed the test is even named and sponsoeed by the NMS (thus the "NMSQT" in its full name: "National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test". Any school which aggressively presses to pump up its NMS numbers by ensuring that qualifying students complete their applications will also obviously press students to *take* the PSAT/NMSQT in the first place. Thus high NMS numbers will correlate with high numbers of SEMIfinalists as well, due to level of school involvement and not necessarily higher score numbers.

I'd be far more interested in seeing the test RESULTS, and not just the raw number of students who have achieved over X on the test, since this says *nothing* about the number of students who actually *took* the test. For all you know, that Catholic school ensured that most of its students *took* the test, while the public schools didn't bother and had low turnout. This alone would ensure more semifinalists and finalists for the Catholic school, EVEN IF THE STUDENT'S ACTUAL TEST RESULTS WERE IDENTICAL across the schools. This is is why I point out that the raw number of NMS finalists is a poor indicator of actual school quality.

I'm betting that the public skools around here would sell their own sister to Satan to get one additional NMS semifinalist.

I'm betting you have it exactly backwards. Public schools don't need to "advertise" for students, nor is their funding based on how many NMS semifinalists or finalists they can manage to produce. PRIVATE schools, on the other hand, have a very strong incentive to gain academic "bragging rights" of various sorts which they can use to try to justify why parents should part with their hard-earned dollars and send their kids to that private school as opposed to public school or some other private school.

If I ran a private school, you can bet your a** I'd be pushing for every single student to take the PSAT/NMSQT in order to pump the school's numbers up as high as possible, and to beat on every student who made semifinalist to make sure they damned well sent in their applications. Public schools, on the other hand, frankly don't have to care whether a particular student takes the qualifying test or not.

Do I have to go look this up, or do you just want to believe someone who's lived in this area a long, long time?

Yes, you really do have to look it up. And don't just find the number of semi-finalists, since that tells little for reasons I've described above. Find the RATE at which students qualify (i.e., number of semifinalists divided by the total number who *took* the test), or even better, find the distribution of actual test scores among all students who took the test at each set of schools.

If you're going to try to "argue with statistics", then you're going to have to do the hard work of making sure that you acquire the most directly relevant statistics, and just not ones that can or have been skewed by parties who are less than disinterested -- like private schools that have a strong incentive to "produce results" which they can use to "sell" their school to parents in exchange for tuition fees. NMS numbers can be too easily skewed simply by the level of school participation, entirely apart from any difference in actual test scores.

1,475 posted on 02/15/2006 1:13:22 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1470 | View Replies]

To: xzins
" As you can see, it requires no such thing that I reject evidence. My attitude is very simple, I have confidence that the future will reveal more and more that will continue to demonstrate that God is correct.

I do not reject; I hold it in abeyance until the explanation arrives."

That's rejection. The explanation HAS arrived; parts of the Bible are not consistent with the physical evidence.

" Didn't some geneticist recently postulate "Eve" as the mother of humanity?"

No.

" The bottom line: (1) The Bible is right; (2) The bible is wrong."

Or 3) Parts of the Bible are right, and parts of it are wrong.

" If Adam is a "myth," then what does that say about Christianty?"

It has some 'splainin to do.

"And what does it say about evolution's real attitude toward Christianity."

That depends on which interpretation of Christianity you are talking about.

" On the one hand....myth. On the other hand...factual knowledge.

It says that evolution is actually atheistic."

It says no such thing. Again, you make the logical fallacy that if evolution says something that disagrees with Christianity, that that means it's atheistic. Christianity is not the only theistic religion. By your logic, anybody who didn't believe in your version of Christianity was an atheist because they didn't accept YOUR God. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to reinvent the meanings of words. The fact is evolution says NOTHING for or against the possible existence of a God. It's no different that any other science.
1,476 posted on 02/15/2006 1:14:58 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1472 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones; WildHorseCrash; shuckmaster
And lighten up all you Evos. Since you don't believe in a personal God who can see your heart and knows your inner thoughts, what's bugging you so much?

What's bugging us? The fact that you tell frequent lies like the one you just told here, despite the fact that it has been made quite clear to you on a number of occasions that it is, in fact, a falsehood.

One more time: An acceptance of evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism or the belief in an "impersonal" God, or even a rejection of orthodox Christianity.

Are you a shameless liar, or just stone stupid? Or simply childishly troll?

1,477 posted on 02/15/2006 1:18:02 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1474 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

"Science" is atheism as of the laudatory Dover ruling! Hooray! A light unto the nations, is Dover PA! The Center of intellect in the US of A is Dover PA!


1,478 posted on 02/15/2006 1:18:31 PM PST by bvw (Blind swamis are everywhere. The answer is "an elephant".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1404 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Dr. Eckleburg; P-Marlowe; Corin Stormhands
No, I am saying that the 2 don't reconcile.

I'm saying that there is no message about theistic evolution in the Bible. It simply is not there. Nor is a lot of different things. Therefore, they are not biblical teachings.

That is the bottom line, and it is unassailable.

I am not talking about what I "think" the bible is saying. I'm talking about what is there in its pages. Noah is there, Moses is there, Jonah is there, Jesus is there.

Xzins is not there, Ichneumon is not there, Little Red Riding Hood is not there, Snow White is not there....all of which are probably interesting stories. But they are not in the bible.

Theistic evolution is not there. Creation is there.

As for who I am. Sure, you can say I'm out of touch, a dreamer, a bit 'tetched' BUT....

Call me Pilgrim.

13 These all died in faith, F38 not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

1,479 posted on 02/15/2006 1:20:06 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1468 | View Replies]

To: bvw
""Science" is atheism as of the laudatory Dover ruling!"

No, the ruling said no such thing. I am not surprised you would make that up though, considering your history of *misspeaking*. :)
1,480 posted on 02/15/2006 1:20:11 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1478 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,441-1,4601,461-1,4801,481-1,500 ... 2,421-2,439 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson