Here is an idea for you (you could use a few). If you don't post nonsense I won't have to refute it.
THE END
LOL! Hope everyone had a good a lauph at this read with Natural Evasion, er, rather Natural Law as I did.
;)
You probably know this already but I have a perfect example of an Evo tactic by Natural Law here, in reverse order for better reading, and I think it can be used as an example to others:
It all began when Natural Law doubled up with an Evo supporter:
• Tale of Two Creation Films Denied First Amendment Rights on Darwin's Anniversary
Friday, November 27, 2009 10:54:39 AM • 98 of 119 Natural Law to celmak
"Fantastic; the you should have no problem with government schools including the pro and con about Evolution, correct? "
Do you have a problem with the Hindu, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Druid, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Pagan, and Animist versions of creation being taught as well and being given equal merit with science and the Judeo-Christian version?
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies
Friday, November 27, 2009 12:56:44 PM • 100 of 119 celmak to Natural Law
Do you have a problem with the Hindu, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Druid, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Pagan, and Animist versions of creation being taught as well and being given equal merit with science and the Judeo-Christian version?
Not at all, let all religions stand on there own in the debate. Do you agree with this?
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies
• Friday, November 27, 2009 1:44:58 PM • 102 of 120 Natural Law to celmak
"Do you agree with this?"
No. I have no problem with the dozens of creation myths nd stories being introduced and discussed in history, philosophy, theology or comparitive religion classes, but not in science classes.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies
Friday, November 27, 2009 6:05:13 PM • 102 of 119 celmak to Natural Law
No. I have no problem with the dozens of creation myths nd stories being introduced and discussed in history, philosophy, theology or comparative religion classes, but not in science classes.
OK, for now I'll leave out anything "religious"; give me any substantial fact in any book in any government school that even discuss the problems with evolution.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies
Friday, November 27, 2009 7:21:20 PM • 107 of 119 Natural Law to celmak
"give me any substantial fact in any book in any government school that even discuss the problems with evolution."
Let's begin with the name given; its the Theory of Evolution. A theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations where absolute proof is not present. What "problems" would you discuss?
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies
Saturday, November 28, 2009 7:51:20 AM • 109 of 119 celmak to Natural Law
Let's begin with the name given; its the Theory of Evolution.
Government schools may call it a theory but they teach it as fact.
A theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations where absolute proof is not present.
If Evo's would only preach that it is not absolute proof!
What "problems" would you discuss?
See line 101; do you think Lucy should be seen as a empirical observation of Evolution in any textbook?
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies
Line 101 set here:
Friday, November 27, 2009 1:03:48 PM • 101 of 119 celmak to tacticalogic
As long as the "pro and con" are based on objective, scientifically supportable arguments, that is correct.
Great, we are in agreement; but then why is there no debate in government schools? You will never see in a text book the following:
The truth about "Lucy:"
• Lucy, as mentioned before, has many detractors, it is a wonder why she is even mentioned as an example of Evolution; Lucy being important because of her “ability” to walk upright. First, Lucy’s pelvis was in forty different pieces when found. When they finally put it together, they found it did not fit the model of an upright hominid, so they shaped the “distortion” to fit the correct model (Donald Johanson, Ansestors, pgs. 64-65, 1994).
In a conversation on a NOVA special, Johanson states the following:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html
We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.
OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.
DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.
OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.
DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours.
Second, Brian Richmond and David Strait (eminent paleoanthropologist) of George Washington University identified similar morphological features on two early ‘hominids’, including Lucy:
“A UPGMA clustering diagram … illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes, indicating that these hominids retain the derived wrist morphology of knuckle-walkers (Richmond & Strait, Nature404(6776): 382, 2000 ).”
Third, Charles Oxnard (Charles E. Oxnard, Dean, Grad School, Professor Biology and Anatomy, USC) reinforces the fact that Lucy is not in between ape and man, that the uniqueness of Lucy makes her an improbable candidate for the Evolutionary line of man (Charles E. Oxnard, Professor Biology & Anatomy, USC, AMERICAN BIOLIGY TEACHER, Vol. 41, May ’79, pg. 274). In 2001, Dr. Meave Leaky (part of the great Leaky family) states:
“It is impossible to tell whether we are more closely related to Lucy or K. pltyops. There is too much missing from the fossil record since then (Cohen, Who’s your daddy? New Scientist, pg 5, March 2001).”
Then there is the trouble of trying to retract what Richard Leaky, renowned anthropologist, stated in 1983 that the scull of Lucy was so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made out of plaster of paris (The Weekend Australian, magazine section, pg. 3, May 1983),” let alone what kind of species she belonged to. To this date, no true scientist could tell you that a real “transitional” fossil, or “missing link,” has been found. Scientists freely admit that there are still too many gaps in the fossil record (Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980).
Facts about “Lucy” from Evos, none from non-Evos; and this is just a start.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies
Saturday, November 28, 2009 8:39:28 AM • 112 of 119 Natural Law to celmak
"If Evo's would only preach that it is not absolute proof!"
The use of terms like "evos" and the word "scientist" as pejoratives and referring to them like they are some kind of monolithic organization is nothing more than YEC rhetoric.
Here is an idea for you; if you don't like what is taught in school don't send your kids there. Do like I did and send them to parochial schools where you can manage what they are taught and not taught.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies
Saturday, November 28, 2009 4:19:47 PM • 118 of 119 celmak to Natural Law
The use of terms like "evos" and the word "scientist" as pejoratives and referring to them like they are some kind of monolithic organization is nothing more than YEC rhetoric.
Your condescension is vapid; I could take being called a YEC the same way. I have not used the word scientist; as a pejorative unless it is combined with "elite", "elitist" or "elitism" if I'm not mistaken. In any case, Evo is shorthand, so is Creo, ID'er, Big Banger or BB's, etc.; live with it, I do with your inferring belittlement.
Here is an idea for you; if you don't like what is taught in school don't send your kids there.
Here is an idea for you; if you don't like what is being stated by Creo's, BB's, ID'ers then don't read or write in Free Republic.
Do like I did and send them to parochial schools where you can manage what they are taught and not taught.
The problem is not whether or not what is liked or disliked in schools, stop avoiding the problem. You asked, What "problems" would you discuss? I set down the first problem, what is your answer to it?
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies
Saturday, November 28, 2009 4:36:38 PM • 119 of 119 Natural Law to celmak
"Here is an idea for you; if you don't like what is being stated by Creo's, BB's, ID'ers then don't read or write in Free Republic."
Here is an idea for you (you could use a few). If you don't post nonsense I won't have to refute it.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies
Sunday, November 29, 2009 9:31:40 AM • 121 of 121 celmak to Natural Law
Here is an idea for you (you could use a few). If you don't post Nonsense I won't have to refute it.
THE END
LOL! Hope everyone had a good a lauph at this read with Natural Evasion, er, rather Natural Law as I did.
;)
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies