Teaching Alternative To Evolution Backed

Washinton Post ^ | Wednesday, May 29, 2002 | Michael A. Fletcher

[Gladwin]

Two House Republicans are citing landmark education reform legislation in pressing for the adoption of a school science curriculum in their home state of Ohio that includes the teaching of an alternative to evolution.

In what both sides of the debate say is the first attempt of its kind, Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot have urged the Ohio Board of Education to consider the language in a conference report that accompanied the major education law enacted earlier this year.....

[VadeRetro]

I don't know. I did not cite Wells.

The guy answering Wells could have been answering you on the interpretation of BIFs. So could Schopf have been. Before you ask, there was no link to Schopf because I had to type it in from my copy of his book. If you don't have your own, you need one.

I cited a link to Duke University chemistry resources. This was from a link JediGirl gave. You apparently didn't read it or you may not understand oxidation/reduction. I answered your problem with the atmosphere and BIF.

And I answered your answer.

Please note: Oxygen is not needed for oxidation to occur or for something to be considered oxidizing.

Please note: the guy answering Wells could have been answering you: Was the prebiotic atmosphere reducing? Are the Miller-Urey experiments "irrelevant"?

[VadeRetro]

You didn't answer. You dodged.

Everyone he ever argues with accuses him of being dodgy, shifty, and lawyerly. He's apparently very unlucky.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Give us a non-controversial counter-example to excluded middle...

Probably a bit off topic, but the law of the excluded middle is independent of other laws of first order logic. For example: take the plane as the universal set; identify a statement as an open set; and identify negation as the largest open set contained in the complement of the set being negated. Then NOT(NOT(x)) is not equivalent to x. Intuitionist Logic (stemming from Brower et alia) does not use the law of the excluded middle. On the other hand, NOT(NOT(NOT(x)) does equal NOT(x). I don't know if these types of logics have any physical application.

[VadeRetro]

Johnson can't be demolished with any intellectual honesty because he uses the admissions of Darwin and the Darwinists to prove his case.

Lots of Luddites do that, which makes it easy to point out that they can and do weave all kind of silly false pictures with their selective editing of reality. Creationist Quotes and Misquotes.

He is not a scientist, but a logician and lawyer.

Well, a lawyer.

It follows that the fossil record, writes Johnson, should look like the frames of a movie, with very subtle differences.

You mean Smooth Change in the Fossil Record?

And even if many frames were lost, one should still find sufficient frames to demonstrate the gradualness, the great, glacial-like slowness of the changing of one species into another. Yet, after nearly 200 years of searching, Man has yet to find a single fossil record demonstrating such gradual change.

Actually, many frames are lost because pressures on a population to change to change its adaptation aren't continuous. They're acute in times of crisis, but are entirely absent for long periods of history. You have to model with the real world.

And that's what we increasingly do. Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium.

Another willful dumbdumbism by a shady lawyer. It's the joint operation of variation and natural selection that produces change in a population. Lawyering Luddites always attack the two parts separately. "Randomness doesn't go anywhere!" "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology. Variation creates the menu. The ebb and flow of events takes things off and leaves others on. The joint operation of both is not random and not a tautology.

All Johnson does is demonstrate that evolutionists must believe in great leaps in the evolutionary process that are unrelated to the environment and that occur on at least the scale of two, male and female, at a time and within a distance that they can find each other. And to believe this, that the Salamander gave birth to the frog in one giant leap of evolution while her neighboring salamander gave birth to a female frog within a near distance and time frame requires faith, like a religion.

It doesn't work that way. No non-creationist out of high school believes that it does. The population genetics change over time, but the population never loses internal mutual compatibility.

Think about the argument you/Johnson just made in your above paragraph and how I answered it. The argument you rebutted isn't what anyone seriously believes. That should not be happening, but it is.

If you think what you said above is how evolution works, you don't know what you're talking about. But if you don't really think it works that way, you're pretending that you do. And why do I care which it is?

[Condorman]

The purpose of these threads is discussion, civilized discussion not abuse, insults or character assassination . . . You do not have a right to defame people . . .
posted on 5/31/02 5:40 AM Pacific by Freeper "X" (an anti-evolutionist)

Your problem is that you are too arrogant and think you know what God's purpose is. It's way beyond your pay grade.
posted on 5/31/02 5:52 AM Pacific by Freeper "X" (an anti-evolutionist)

Two posts under the same username a mere 12 minutes apart. Look closely and one can identify a discrepancy that begs explanation. Simple psychosis? Was Freeper "X" (an anti-evolutionist) just forgetful? Were they posts from two different individuals logged in under the same account? Or have I erred in giving Freeper "X" (an anti-evolutionist) the benefit of the doubt? Might there be something else, something malicious or perhaps even dangerous, at work?

[PatrickHenry]

You beat me to it. However, I'm working on a more elaborate demonstration.

[OBAFGKM]

"I don't know if these types of logics have any physical application."

They do, indeed, and are currently a hot topic in quantum gravity. See, for example Seminars on constructivist logic in quantum theory. You might also want to find a copy of "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" by Lee Smolin. In fact, the study of inconsistent logics is currently a hot topic in both math & physics. (Where, after all, is it written that logic must be consistent?)

(Sorry for not posting sooner. I had to log out last night.)

[JediGirl]

ooooh. i can't wait :-D

[Dimensio]

The problem is that if you define "God" as the origin of all natural laws then you've just created a definition that lacks any meaning apart from "the origin of all natural laws". Such a "God" has no other defined attributes, such as a personality or even sentience, and as such it's not very useful because 1) the text string "God" already has a very different commonly accepted definition and 2) it's not too difficult to simply call it "origin of all natural laws", at least until we have more evidence for whatever that origin might have been or what properties it posesses.

[Dimensio]

Showing a monkey turning into a man would prove ID wrong, I would rather think....:) But, of course you can't show that, can you?

Why would showing a monkey turning into a man disprove ID? What in that would rule out intelligent design? In fact, if such a thing were discovered it would have rather serious ramifications on the currently accepted theories in biology (likely including evolution) -- we'd probably have to throw out quite a bit of what we have now...but I don't see how it would at all affect the notion that an intelligent designer was responsible for the creation of the universe (or even just the creation of life on this planet)

[Dimensio]

Hey, if you don't accept that human thought is totally natural process, I won't argue -- that just puts it outside the realm of science, and thus the desire to find a means of disproving any thought process is trivial.

[Condorman]

On the other hand, you could teach; [snip]

Most of what you posted would be a fine lesson for Sunday school; the world is a facinating place.

But none of what you posted-- not one thing-- has anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution or science in particualar.

[PatrickHenry]

Another compendium. Observe that g3k has cleaned up his act in recent months. Few are the direct claims that his opponents are liars, slimers, Clintonian liars, etc. Yet the old g3k still shines through:

To VadeRetro:
Evolutionists have posted hundreds of insults, abuses, character assassinations on some threads and not gotten kicked out of FR. YOU know that very well. Evolutionists have also been guilty of many other infractions such as reposting of deleted posts and using multiple accounts on these threads.
The purpose of these threads is discussion, civilized discussion not abuse, insults or character assassination. It is time you and your friends start following the rules instead of complaining about them. You do not have a right to defame people, live with it.
393 posted on 5/31/02 8:40 AM Eastern by gore3000

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Your problem is that you are too arrogant and think you know what God's purpose is. It's way beyond your pay grade.
396 posted on 5/31/02 8:52 AM Eastern by gore3000

That was from this current thread. Now this stuff comes from Intelligent Design? (Another School Board Disclaimers Evolution)

To: PatrickHenry
No need for you look at what the other side has to say, your beliefs are impervious to evidence.
406 posted on 5/28/02 10:40 PM Eastern by gore3000

To: VadeRetro
The above is a totally gratuitous insult and I am not going to stand for your deliberate, uncalled for character assassinations. If you disagree with me, address your argument to me and do so in a civilized manner.
410 posted on 5/28/02 10:57 PM Eastern by gore3000

To: VadeRetro
No, threads do not "lock". Threads are locked by moderators because they have degenerated into a bunch of insults and gone off topic. You have been insulting Andrew in just about every post you make. You have thrown a few at me even though you are not even talking to me. In every thread pulled it was the evolutionists who had their posts pulled by the bunch prior to its being locked and you, by your little old self accounted for almost half those pulled posts. So don't go around blaming others for the pulled threads. It is your tactics of insulting, debasing others, and indulging in blatant character assassination that have gotten many threads pulled. YOu and one of your friends got suspended last time one of the threads got pulled. Perhaps next time, instead of continuing to pull threads they will start cancelling the accounts of those whose actions are getting the threads pulled.
412 posted on 5/28/02 11:18 PM Eastern by gore3000

To: Condorman
Very lame, very despicable, very dishonest.
442 posted on 5/29/02 1:02 AM Eastern by gore3000

To: PatrickHenry
The "C" side of things has learned absolutely nothing about science, or rational thought. But they do manage to pick up some phrases here and there. Sometimes a whole sentence. And then they unthinkingly indulge in mimicry.

We certainly cannot learn anything from you, since all you do is insult. How come you cannot give evidence from your side? How come you cannot refute the statements of the anti-evolutionists? How come your 'science' cannot give evidence of its being true? And finally - since you cannot refute the statements of those who do not believe in evolution - how come you have not changed your position? How come you are still an evolutionist when you have been shown just how silly and unscientific your theory is?
462 posted on 5/29/02 8:35 AM Eastern by gore3000

And now from this thread: Famed Harvard Biologist Gould Dies

To: Dog Gone
Evolutionist writers are such liars they can never tell the truth.
164 posted on 5/20/02 8:18 PM Eastern by gore3000

To: Hunble
Yes indeed, all you have is insults ... In short, his life [Gould's life] was truly that of a 'whore of evolution'.
206 posted on 5/20/02 9:31 PM Eastern by gore3000

To: BMCDA
Yup, guess that in addition to being blind to the evidence against evolution you are also color blind?
214 posted on 5/20/02 10:07 PM Eastern by gore3000

To: BMCDA
Seems pretty clear that morality is not your choice. Pretty sad, because even here on earth you will not find fullfillment.
290 posted on 5/21/02 8:46 AM Eastern by gore3000

To: Junior
How can you call yourself a Christian and spout such nonsense as that?
553 posted on 5/22/02 7:29 AM Eastern by gore3000

To: general_re
You are totally dishonest in saying the above and we both know it. You see your problem is that as an atheist you need to try to destroy the truth, so all you can do is play little word games and totally lie about what someone said. It only shows your dishonesty and the utter desperation of your position that you have to waddle in the lowest forms argument in order to try to discredit your opponents.
702 posted on 5/22/02 9:29 PM Eastern by gore3000

To: general_re
You keep misrepresenting my statements by turning inside out what I said. You did not even wait for me to respond to you you keep misrepresenting what you, in your atheistic mind wished to put in my mouth. Very dishonest.
710 posted on 5/22/02 9:52 PM Eastern by gore3000

To: general_re
No it is not as I showed already . But like a mad dog gnawing on a bone you will not let go when proven wrong. You did not wish to discuss issues, you wished to attack me, so you will listen to nothing except to what you already had set out in your mind to put in my mouth. Your dishonesty is obvious. And yes, you are an atheist. Your religious bashing, your insistence on denying the majesty of God proves that beyond a doubt.
711 posted on 5/22/02 9:59 PM Eastern by gore3000

To: general_re
You are totally dishonest. ... because you cannot argue honestly and win so like the rest of the evos you have to lie and put words in people's mouths.
714 posted on 5/22/02 10:12 PM Eastern by gore3000

To: general_re
For an atheist like yourself, the thought of anything being immutable, the thought of anyone not being a deceiver like yourself and your atheist heros Clinton, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sun, Castro and many other scum of the earth may seem inconceivable.
716 posted on 5/22/02 10:21 PM Eastern by gore3000

[ArGee]

There's no need for you to believe in gravity. It's there, no need for convincing. You can see a rainbow and think "There's evidence of God." I see it and think "That refraction of light is beautiful to me."

I think you vastly oversimplify who I am and what I know and believe. That's fine.

There is no need for you to believe in G-d other than the fact that G-d exists and He is the one, ultimately, with whom you have to do. I also have no need to convince you other than my general humanitarian bent. Your belief or unbelief has no impact on me.

But when I mention something factual about G-d, such as it is easier to accept the deity of Jesus once you have met Him, don't read that as a hook. Read that as a factual statement, such as you telling me that it would be much easier to avoid falling off of things if I knew more about gravity.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Hey, if you don't accept that human thought is totally natural process, I won't argue -- that just puts it outside the realm of science,

Precisely. In fact, there is a huge amount of reality that is outside the realm of science. In fact, scientific knowledge is a very limited set of knowledge, despite the fact that it is very useful within its limited realm.

Shalom.

[VadeRetro]

Another willful dumbdumbism by a shady lawyer.

Needed a paste in front of this one. The dumbdumbism referred to is this:

Johnson then goes on to note that the phrase so important to the Darwinists "survival of the fittest" is a mere tautology, or circular reasoning.

I might as mention that mathematics is full of tautologies and maybe-tautologies. What's a maybe-tautology? 1 + 1 = 2 is a tautology if you define 2 as 1 + 1.

(a + b)² = a² + 2ab + b² is the same as a tautology after you've known it for a while, but it isn't when you first learn it.

[general_re]

"Heros" placemarker.

[VadeRetro]

G3K to me: Evolutionists have also been guilty of many other infractions such as reposting of deleted posts and using multiple accounts on these threads.

I missed that. I've gone from fast-skimming to not reading some people. It's a given to C-siders that No-Kin was an E. Just for the record, nothing was announced about who No-Kin was, only that he wasn't somebody's primary nom d'ecran and he wasn't me.

[general_re]

Logical consistency is not Freeper "X"'s strong suit. Freeper "X" objects loudly and repeatedly to the logical implications of his/her own statements, for example.

[BMCDA]

Aw Shucks! Now I really saw this coming._{I mean the post you responded to.}