Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
You just made my point favoring either teaching all creation myths in science class (untenable to say the least!), moving the teaching of the various creation stories to religious studies or philosophy class, or simply letting parents keep their education dollars so they can send their children to the school of their choice. I am all for the latter option. How about you?
why do you need a judge
Are you forgetting the creationist’s lawsuit to force the UofC system to accept students that are taught from science textbooks that openly state that much of science is incorrect?
How many times do you need me to go over this?
Godless liberals set the table and made the rules by suing and censoring and Christians are finally playing your game
Thanks for the suggestion. A glass of cold water is nice. Why did you suggest it?
So only atheist scientists can believe a match can burn a finger?
That is a dumb statement for you to believe. Of course, even a religious guy can believe a match can burn a finger but NO one can explain how the matter in the match is converted to energy. We have a model that allows us to understand and use the chemical reaction and even calculate the change in mass but it is ONLY a model.
No, it was a dumb thing for you to say in the first place!
Quit trying to change the subject. When were you at a debate on evolution among scientists as you have claimed. Ms. Scott speaks as I have spoken earlier. Did you read all of her article? The 90% you omitted?
Where are these books from?
OF COURSE a religious text would put God first! SHEESH!
And it is absurd to suggest one single cell is responsible for every living thing we’ve seen from the beginning of time until today, at least to rational human beings.
YOU: That is a dumb statement for you to believe.
I didn't say I believed it. It was a question based on the part you edited out.
ME: Of course, even a religious guy can believe a match can burn a finger but NO one can explain how the matter in the match is converted to energy. We have a model that allows us to understand and use the chemical reaction and even calculate the change in mass but it is ONLY a model.
YOU: No, it was a dumb thing for you to say in the first place!
I see nothing dumb about it.
Evolution is a complex set of ideas that is not easily explained in the sound-bite razzle-dazzle of the debate format. Evolution applies to astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, biology, geology -- you name the field, and evolution will relate to it, like as not. ....Creationist debaters (at least the nationally-prominent ones) are masters at presenting these half-truth non-sequiturs that the audience misunderstands as relevant points. These can be very difficult to counter in a debate situation, unless you have a lot of time. And you never have enough time to deal with even a fraction of the half-truths or plain erroneous statements that creationists can come out with.
YOU: That is a dumb statement for you to believe.
I didn't say I believed it. It was a question based on the part you edited out.
ME: Of course, even a religious guy can believe a match can burn a finger but NO one can explain how the matter in the match is converted to energy. We have a model that allows us to understand and use the chemical reaction and even calculate the change in mass but it is ONLY a model.
YOU: No, it was a dumb thing for you to say in the first place!
I see nothing dumb about it.
the minority godless
Can’t get much more ephemeral than that.
works both ways with all the ridiculous “OH NO we’re gonna turn into a theorcracy” sky is falling lunacy.
the minority godless
Can’t get much more ephemeral than that.
works both ways with all the ridiculous “OH NO we’re gonna turn into a theocracy” sky is falling lunacy.
Excuses, excuses....
She’s talking about scientists and non-scientists alike. The Evos almost always lose in the eyes of the audience. I have watched Temple of Darwin scientists get eaten for lunch at church. I have seen them get eaten for lunch on university campuses. And I have seen them get destroyed on video.
From your link:
What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship. That’s the first problem. The audience that is most anxious to come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that supports the creationist. In the comparatively rare situation where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercise every effort to turn out their crowd. Don’t be surprised to see church busses from many local communities lined up outside the debate hall. In some cases, the sponsors advertised only among the faithful, posting up only a handful of flyers on campus. Guess who came?
The second problem is that the evolutionist debater has an upstream battle from the start. Evolution is a complex set of ideas that is not easily explained in the sound-bite razzle-dazzle of the debate format. Evolution applies to astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, biology, geology — you name the field, and evolution will relate to it, like as not. Most audiences have an abysmal understanding of basic science. How are you going to bring an audience up to par? The goal of a debate (I assume) is to teach the audience something about evolution and the nature of science. This is possible in a debate format, but it is difficult to do well, because it is not easy to do quickly.
Just goes to show science is indeed manipulated and controlled by human beings...is often unobjective; so when you don’t know the answers you discuss them and keep moving forward.
And my experience is the side that shuts down debate via lawsuits is liberal and wrong and UNAmerican.
Of this much I’m CERTAIN they’re wrong on.
She is NOT talking about debates among scientists. From your link:
What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship. That’s the first problem. The audience that is most anxious to come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that supports the creationist. In the comparatively rare situation where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercise every effort to turn out their crowd. Don’t be surprised to see church busses from many local communities lined up outside the debate hall. In some cases, the sponsors advertised only among the faithful, posting up only a handful of flyers on campus. Guess who came?
The second problem is that the evolutionist debater has an upstream battle from the start. Evolution is a complex set of ideas that is not easily explained in the sound-bite razzle-dazzle of the debate format. Evolution applies to astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, biology, geology — you name the field, and evolution will relate to it, like as not. Most audiences have an abysmal understanding of basic science. How are you going to bring an audience up to par? The goal of a debate (I assume) is to teach the audience something about evolution and the nature of science. This is possible in a debate format, but it is difficult to do well, because it is not easy to do quickly.
Sort of like Sarah going to an Obama rally.
No one is trying to shutdown debates with lawsuits? As you have said, you have been to many such debates. How many had lawsuits against them?
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.